Jump to content

Was "position-based" instruction always counter-productive?


Recommended Posts

Lately a lot of top instructors are emphasizing that the swing is a dynamic, athletic movement from start to finish. There's more emphasis on the lower body and how foot pressures change at various points in the swing. There's an understanding that people have an innate athletic ability that should be used to help them perform the golf swing. 

 

For example, we now know that the pressure is building under a top player's lead foot before the arms even reach the top of the backswing. In other words, we know that the transition is a dynamic and natural process similar to what we do when we throw a frisbee or crack a whip. The top of the swing isn't static, and no one benefits from thinking of it that way. A picture of a top player's position at the top is pointless without seeing what came just before or just after. It's misleading, actually! 

 

We also know that trying to "hold lag" is not possible, and it's not what the best players do. Instructors have adapted to this new reality, though many players are still unlearning what they read in magazines for years. Again...misleading pictures. 

 

Knowing everything we know now, it seems like the idea of "hitting positions" needs to go on the trash heap of golf instruction.

 

If your position at the top is wrong, we know it's because something happened before that point. If you roll the club open on the way back, it's because your body doesn't understand what it's supposed to be doing through the swing. If your follow-through throws you off balance, it's not because you didn't hit the right position. It's how you moved earlier in the swing. The swing doesn't make sense when broken down into segments. It is ONE THING. 

 

I can totally understand how position-based instruction flourished. You can take a photo of a position. You can put hands on a player and move him into a position. You can judge a swing by examining positions that are achieved. That makes sense. But what doesn't make sense is turning that process backward and saying "If I can get your body into these positions at these points in the swing, the results will be better." I think that way of thinking totally short-circuits the player's mind. It creates tension and uncertainty and robs the swing of any flow. 

 

Am I correct in thinking that we've evolved our understanding past the point of studying and trying to emulate positions?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There is nothing wrong with using positions as reference points/checks, the issue is when people use the positions as an end goal instead of as a result. The single frame at a given position isn't as

Lately a lot of top instructors are emphasizing that the swing is a dynamic, athletic movement from start to finish. There's more emphasis on the lower body and how foot pressures change at various po

Competent instructors have always known this to be true, which is why they refrained from using video.

Posted Images

"Was "position-based" instruction always counter-productive?"

 

I don't see where you've proven position-based instruction was EVER counter-productive. So I guess I don't see where "the idea of "hitting positions" needs to go on the trash heap of golf instruction."

 

And frankly, I don't see where you're suggesting an alternate way of learning the swing. Just saying something doesn't work and what "we're learning" about the swing is hardly enough (which I think was Hawkeye's point).

 

There are many different ways to learn the same thing(s).

 

But by all means let's (actually) hear about your better way. 👍
 

 

 

  • Like 1

Want more posters to read and reply ? "[EMBRACE] THE LINE BREAK"

 

Callaway Epic Flash SZ Triple Diamond 9.0 Tour AD TP-6 Stiff

Ping G400 hybrid, 19*, 70 gr Stock Stiff

Ping G20, 5-PW, DGS300

Ping Glide Forged, 48, 52, 60, DGS300

Vokey SM8 56/08 (Thanks WRX !!!)

Seemore MT7 Face Balanced (Today)

Chrome Soft Truvis Yellow/Black

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this thread turned contentious quickly. 😳

 

Seriously, I think I tend to agree with the OP’s point.  There are so many different effective swings on tour that I think it’s almost chasing rainbows to pick which positions to hit.  Likewise I’m starting to think swing methodologies need to be mothballed as well—S&T, X-Factor, One/Two Plane, A Swing, Five Fundamentals...where does it all stop? 🤷‍♂️

 

  • Like 1

Titleist 917D2, w/UST Mamiya Elements Chrome 7F4T
Titleist 915Fd, w/Aldila Rogue Black 80-2.8-S
18* KZG U Iron, w/UST Proforce V2 100-S
Mizuno MP-18 MMC Fli-Hi 4-5, w/UST Recoil 95 F4
Mizuno MP-18 MMC 6-P, w/UST Recoil 95 F4
Callaway 52* MD5 JAWS S Grind
Callaway 58* PM Grind 19
T.P. Mills Professional Series Klassic/Odyssey O Works Tank #7

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, me05501 said:

 

It's a discussion board. Or it is supposed to be. 

 

Didn't say it wasn't, but if you are posing the question don't you think your take on the answer after all that explanation might be of interest? Just felt a little cheated after reading it that there didn't seem to be an answer.  Given you say we've moved past studying/emulating positions do you think it was "always" counterproductive? Sometimes? It's your proposition - just fleshing it out.  No reason for the suggestion that asking for an answer to your posited question is somehow not a discussion.

 

AMG studies a lot of positions/has drills for emulating positions but is all about that in the context of a "dynamic, athletic movement" - maybe there is more to the studying positions argument? Maybe it has evolved into something more with certain instructors?  

 

 

 

 

Edited by Hawkeye77
Link to post
Share on other sites

Position based instruction is fine. However, too many instructors try to get people into perfect positions rather than using positions as a basis with each position having a range that allows the entire swing to be pieced together. 

 

Path, face control, and shot shape consistency are keys. What you do to get there can be within a range of each position. 

 

The last 2 months I've been working to more fully understand how to limit the flaws in my swing...not fix, reduce impact. I know there are a couple.of moves I make that aren't the best but I manage them well and want to manage them better. My swing is still position based but not on hard set positions. I cannot get my hand path inside at all or I'll never hit a cut. I cannot get too long with the arm swing or my slight OTT gets worse. 

 

Positions can help you manage your flaws. Positions should not be hard set by an instructor. 

Edited by getitdaily
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

OP here, sorry if my stream of consciousness post didn't lead to the discussion I intended. Here's a thought that might be a little more clear I hope. 

 

Let's examine the top or transition as an example. 

 

We know now that good players are already well into their weight shift back to the front foot before their hands reach the top. That's a dynamic position. No single frame of 2D film can accurately show what we KNOW is happening. We can't see the difference in their foot pressures in a still frame of "the top." 

 

In fact, if we do as so many instructors have told us and "swing to the top, then hold it," we are actually programming our brains to feel the opposite of what the best players feel at that moment. Most of us will have our weight equally shared by our feet, or even more weight on our trail foot, in order to freeze at the top and examine that position. Otherwise we'd fall over. 

 

I know from my own experience that I always felt like I should have more weight over my trail foot at the top. Hey, if all the best pros can stop their swing there for a picture, and if every pro I've ever seen says "swing to the top and stop," I should be able to do that.

 

And I can. But when I do, I am feeling THE OPPOSITE of what I would be feeling if I was making a good golf swing. 

 

***

 

The exact same phenomenon happens with "holding lag" and I think most of us know by now that A) it's impossible to do and B) trying to do it is a swing destroying thought. Yet every issue of GOLF magazine has several pictures of players in a position that makes it look very much like they are holding that angle in the downswing. 

 

They are not holding that angle in the downswing. 

 

***

 

This is what I mean by "position-based" instruction and thinking. It seems to me that it is not helpful to our conscious or subconscious understanding of what happens during a good golf swing. 

 

Agree? or Disagree? That is how a discussion works. I don't owe anyone any proof. 🙂

 

 

 

Edited by me05501
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

There is nothing wrong with using positions as reference points/checks, the issue is when people use the positions as an end goal instead of as a result. The single frame at a given position isn't as important as how you get there dynamically. 

 

P4 for example, yes you can suck it inside and arm lift and in a single frame look like you are in a decent position at the top, but P5 isn't going to be pretty since it is in fact a dynamic sequence and how you get there matters. Then the golfer trys to self diagnose and correct, they for the most part will fail because they THINK they are in good shape at P4 and don't understand how it starts to unravel, get super frustrated, try different methods, ignore instructors, blame instructors etc etc. This exact scenario happens in here all the time with the "backswing doesn't matter" crowd

 

 

Agree! Every "position" you achieve during the swing seems to be caused mostly by two things: 

  • what dynamic movement did you do earlier in the swing to get you there? 
  • what compensations is your brain making to try to accomplish your goal of moving that golf ball? 

It's helpful to know that a "position" is incorrect, but it's more important to know how you got there. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, me05501 said:

OP here, sorry if my stream of consciousness post didn't lead to the discussion I intended. Here's a thought that might be a little more clear I hope. 

 

Let's examine the top or transition as an example. 

 

We know now that good players are already well into their weight shift back to the front foot before their hands reach the top. That's a dynamic position. No single frame of 2D film can accurately show what we KNOW is happening. We can't see the difference in their foot pressures in a still frame of "the top." 

 

In fact, if we do as so many instructors have told us and "swing to the top, then hold it," we are actually programming our brains to feel the opposite of what the best players feel at that moment. Most of us will have our weight equally shared by our feet, or even more weight on our trail foot, in order to freeze at the top and examine that position. Otherwise we'd fall over. 

 

I know from my own experience that I always felt like I should have more weight over my trail foot at the top. Hey, if all the best pros can stop their swing there for a picture, and if every pro I've ever seen says "swing to the top and stop," I should be able to do that.

 

And I can. But when I do, I am feeling THE OPPOSITE of what I would be feeling if I was making a good golf swing. 

 

***

 

The exact same phenomenon happens with "holding lag" and I think most of us know by now that A) it's impossible to do and B) trying to do it is a swing destroying thought. Yet every issue of GOLF magazine has several pictures of players in a position that makes it look very much like they are holding that angle in the downswing. 

 

They are not holding that angle in the downswing. 

 

***

 

This is what I mean by "position-based" instruction and thinking. It seems to me that it is not helpful to our conscious or subconscious understanding of what happens during a good golf swing. 

 

Agree? or Disagree? That is how a discussion works. I don't owe anyone any proof. 🙂

 

 

Agree with how a discussion works but strongly disagree with your last sentence.

 

You are making statements that sound contrary to what many people would think happens and present them as fact. Do you NOT owe a source for such a position/fact ?

 

You said "We know now that good players are already well into their weight shift back to the front foot before their hands reach the top"

 

So actually, no, "we", or at least *I*, don't know that. But I'm a big believer in science so iId like to see the proof. Surely you have a link ? A reference ? Or do I just take you at your word ?

 

I'd love to see the research or videos that prove, e.g. that the weight shift has already begun.

 

Note I'm not saying you're wrong. I can't pick out the Queen when a 3 card monte dealer chooses to hide it either. :classic_biggrin: Just like to see the research.

  • Like 2

Want more posters to read and reply ? "[EMBRACE] THE LINE BREAK"

 

Callaway Epic Flash SZ Triple Diamond 9.0 Tour AD TP-6 Stiff

Ping G400 hybrid, 19*, 70 gr Stock Stiff

Ping G20, 5-PW, DGS300

Ping Glide Forged, 48, 52, 60, DGS300

Vokey SM8 56/08 (Thanks WRX !!!)

Seemore MT7 Face Balanced (Today)

Chrome Soft Truvis Yellow/Black

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nsxguy said:

 

Agree with how a discussion works but strongly disagree with your last sentence.

 

You are making statements that sound contrary to what many people would think happens and present them as fact. Do you NOT owe a source for such a position/fact ?

 

You said "We know now that good players are already well into their weight shift back to the front foot before their hands reach the top"

 

So actually, no, "we", or at least *I*, don't know that. But I'm a big believer in science so iId like to see the proof. Surely you have a link ? A reference ? Or do I just take you at your word ?

 

I'd love to see the research or videos that prove, e.g. that the weight shift has already begun.

 

Note I'm not saying you're wrong. I can't pick out the Queen when a 3 card monte dealer chooses to hide it either. :classic_biggrin: Just like to see the research.

 

Here's a whole playlist of "research" that you might find interesting! 

 

I really like the AMG approach of measuring pros, measuring ams, and explaining the differences between the two. That is certainly more scientific than breaking down one person's swing. They're collecting GEARS data and consolidating it into averages, and we can learn a lot from comparing the average pro to the average am. 

 

There was a prototype of sorts for this approach, a book called "Swing Like a Pro" which I also have learned a lot from. 

 

These sources have definitely convinced me that thinking of the backswing and downswing as separate things, or thinking of the takeaway and backswing as different things, or thinking of impact and follow through as different things is not the ideal way to perceive the golf swing.

 

If you look at how other sports are taught, it seems like a more rational process prevails. Sure, batters and quarterbacks work on their technique and try to perfect it, but I doubt anyone is trying to tell them that the first dozen inches of bat head travel is separate from the next dozen and so on. When golf instruction fell into that hole, it was not doing anyone any favors. 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the question more is anyone actually teaching golf based on a limited number of single frame photos? It seems like the only instructional advice in that format is outdated/dying golf magazines in physical print format. I can't think of any coach that doesn't at the very least use video (if not more like GEARS, BodiTrak, launch monitors, etc), at which point, positions are merely checkpoints and the video and other tech shows how one arrived at those checkpoints for further diagnoses. Even the Youtube instructors are in video format, so show those positions but also how they get to them. One could argue that the the non-personalized Youtube instructors don't emphasize common faults in getting to certain positions, or how overdoing certain things can have cascade effects, but that's just par for the course with anything non-personalized to an individual's swing. Which is why actual pro analysis of your swing (either in person or online via video) is important for real improvement. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

To add.    Pretty much all motion instruction has position based aspects.     GEARS and other 3D based systems are now the ultimate position based systems.       Tour pros when swinging well typically get 3D measurements so that when they are off, as we all get, they can take current measurements, compare, and discover the issues.

 

Issue is when "methods" prescribe certain positions one must attain.    Also typical of we humans, is chasing positions independent of any instruction or method.     We see a photo of a good golfer and try to reproduce it.   Even applies to motions - swinging left is a biggee (this is a result and not something one can force).  Yikes, indeed.

 

As Scott Lynn says, we humans are messy and as such we have a lot of variations in our motions.

 

Scott Lynn had a recent webinar on GRF that has a lot of really good information.    It's 1 1/2 hours and Scott presents in the first 48 minutes and afterwards Mark Crossfield joins and they discuss his use of force plates on his swing - Crossfield/Chuck/Rice are having an competition of sorts to speed up their swings so the discussion is interesting as Scott talks thru things Mark can do to improve - lots of good stuff on "little" things like how foot flare impacts your ability to use the ground or even the type of footware and how past teaching (and some probably still do)  taught "out"  motions  that have been found to be important.     Scott talks about examples of him working with Tour players, long drive and others too. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

  • Like 1

Enjoy every sandwich

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, glk said:

To add.    Pretty much all motion instruction has position based aspects.     GEARS and other 3D based systems are now the ultimate position based systems.       Tour pros when swinging well typically get 3D measurements so that when they are off, as we all get, they can take current measurements, compare, and discover the issues.

 

Issue is when "methods" prescribe certain positions one must attain.    Also typical of we humans, is chasing positions independent of any instruction or method.     We see a photo of a good golfer and try to reproduce it.   Even applies to motions - swinging left is a biggee (this is a result and not something one can force).  Yikes, indeed.

 

As Scott Lynn says, we humans are messy and as such we have a lot of variations in our motions.

 

Scott Lynn had a recent webinar on GRF that has a lot of really good information.    It's 1 1/2 hours and Scott presents in the first 48 minutes and afterwards Mark Crossfield joins and they discuss his use of force plates on his swing - Crossfield/Chuck/Rice are having an competition of sorts to speed up their swings so the discussion is interesting as Scott talks thru things Mark can do to improve - lots of good stuff on "little" things like how foot flare impacts your ability to use the ground or even the type of footware and how past teaching (and some probably still do)  taught "out"  motions  that have been found to be important.     Scott talks about examples of him working with Tour players, long drive and others too. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

Thanks for sharing. I'm working my way through this content. At 23:00 he mentions something that others have also identified, which is that most great players have some horizontal movement or "sway" in their swing. This is another great example of new knowledge that contradicts the old.

 

It's also interesting because this horizontal motion is subtle and not likely to be easily seen in still 2D photos. AMG says the pros they've measured move anywhere from 1-3" laterally off the ball. That can be hard to see, but modern tech allows them to measure it. 

 

I still struggle with the concept of the ground "pushing back" against the golfer. Maybe people who say that aren't explaining themselves fully in a way that I can understand. Maybe they mean gravity or some other force. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, me05501 said:

 

 

Thanks for sharing. I'm working my way through this content. At 23:00 he mentions something that others have also identified, which is that most great players have some horizontal movement or "sway" in their swing. This is another great example of new knowledge that contradicts the old.

 

It's also interesting because this horizontal motion is subtle and not likely to be easily seen in still 2D photos. AMG says the pros they've measured move anywhere from 1-3" laterally off the ball. That can be hard to see, but modern tech allows them to measure it. 

 

I still struggle with the concept of the ground "pushing back" against the golfer. Maybe people who say that aren't explaining themselves fully in a way that I can understand. Maybe they mean gravity or some other force. 

The ground pushing back is goofy nomenclature.  It just means the ground does not give way when you push against it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

The ground pushing back is goofy nomenclature.  It just means the ground does not give way when you push against it.

 

That's the way I perceive it, but when the guy in the webinar starts drawing "force arrows" to indicate the concept it seems like a big stretch.

I definitely get the point of it, though. Pushing down through a certain part of your foot is going to cause your hips to react to that pressure.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Wesquire said:

 

Yes, but that also implies a force coming back due to Newton's 3rd

 

I had to go to Kahn Academy on that one, but you're right. This is not a concept I was familiar with.

 

It still seems odd to me that when a swimmer makes a turn against a concrete wall, the force they apply against the wall by pushing their legs is matched with a force from the wall pushing their legs. But science says so, apparently. 

This may be why I avoided Physics in school. 

Edited by me05501
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, me05501 said:

 

I had to go to Kahn Academy on that one, but you're right. This is not a concept I was familiar with.

 

It still seems odd to me that when a swimmer makes a turn against a concrete wall, the force they apply against the wall by pushing their legs is matched with a force from the wall pushing their legs. But science says so, apparently. 

This may be why I avoided Physics in school. 

 

Think about the act of jumping. If there's not a force going up, how do you go up?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmmm. Never enjoyed science in school but it's more interesting now that I'm older.

 

I would think of the ground and the wall as "resistance". Isn't that a "thing" in physics ?

 

Always wondered about that sort of thing though given the "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction".

 

Since the pushing of the swimmer's legs against the wall supports no discernible action on the wall's part, is the resistance of the wall considered the reaction ?

Want more posters to read and reply ? "[EMBRACE] THE LINE BREAK"

 

Callaway Epic Flash SZ Triple Diamond 9.0 Tour AD TP-6 Stiff

Ping G400 hybrid, 19*, 70 gr Stock Stiff

Ping G20, 5-PW, DGS300

Ping Glide Forged, 48, 52, 60, DGS300

Vokey SM8 56/08 (Thanks WRX !!!)

Seemore MT7 Face Balanced (Today)

Chrome Soft Truvis Yellow/Black

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2020 at 9:20 AM, me05501 said:

... I can totally understand how position-based instruction flourished. You can take a photo of a position. You can put hands on a player and move him into a position. You can judge a swing by examining positions that are achieved. That makes sense. But what doesn't make sense is turning that process backward and saying "If I can get your body into these positions at these points in the swing, the results will be better."

 

The P1 through P9 approach to swing analysis has its uses, but the approach can't lead you to hit the golf ball well. What analyzing the positions can do is show you where your swing is going off track.

 

Early last season, a video clip of my swing showed at P4 (top) I have reached past my natural shoulder rotation and am looping the club. This can lead to multiple different positions at P6 through P8 as I simultaneously try to regain my balance and hit the ball.

 

Solution: I have to get back the feel of when I'm at the top, and not go past it. P5 is the clue, but regaining the feel during the swing motion is the cure.

 

In the mid-1900s, golf pro Manuel de la Torre compiled the ideas on a simple approach to golf: swing the clubhead... Motion over position. The idea was to harness the person's intuitive ability to tease out the motions of the golf swing.

 

One current MdT practitioner gave this example: Let's say I show you a tennis ball and say "catch." As I toss it, do you think of muscular extension and contraction and a P4 to P5 transition, or do you focus on catching the ball and let your natural instincts take over? 

 

MdT would show a golfer the details of grip and setup, and then emphasize these two points:

Backswing: Use both hands to swing the clubhead in the direction of the right shoulder

Downswing: Use both arms to swing the whole club in the direction of the target

 

I see this tease out in interesting ways with modern instructors. Some will give you a video clip summary of your lesson: before and after. Another will give you a still shot of a critical position: before and after. Despite the fact they will show you a critical position, He worries that a student will  take the video and do a lot of stop action will distract the golfer from developing the proper motion and its feel.

 

One teaching pro I worked with was well versed in electronic aids to help build a swing. But, he said it all comes down to this: "Sooner or later, you have to step up and hit the  *%# ball."

Edited by ChipNRun

What's In The Bag (Summary as of October 2020)

 

Driver:  Tour Edge EXS 10.5°, weights neutral   ||  FWs:  Calla Rogue 4W + 7W

Hybrid:  Calla Big Bertha OS 4H at 22°  ||  Irons:  Tour Edge CB Pro Tungsten 4i-9i

Wedges:  Calla MD3: 48°, 54°... MD4: 58° ||  Putter: Ping Sigma G Tyne (face-balanced)

Ball: Calla SuperHot (Orange preferred)  ||  Bag: Sun Mountain Three 5 stand bag

For details see:  Pending (need protocol to embed file list).

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

Hmmmmm. Never enjoyed science in school but it's more interesting now that I'm older.

 

I would think of the ground and the wall as "resistance". Isn't that a "thing" in physics ?

 

Always wondered about that sort of thing though given the "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction".

 

Since the pushing of the swimmer's legs against the wall supports no discernible action on the wall's part, is the resistance of the wall considered the reaction ?

 

The resistance is not the reaction. I'm not a physics expert, but in my understanding, the swimmer's wall and the jumper's ground not moving has more to do with being able to exert maximum force against it to take advantage of the reaction force. If you try to jump while standing on a foam mattress, you won't jump as high because the deformation of the material absorbs some force....so I think of it as the rigidity of the wall/ground making the transmission of the forces more efficient.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, ChipNRun said:

 

The P1 through P9 approach to swing analysis has its uses, but the approach can't lead you to hit the golf ball well. What analyzing the positions can do is show you where your swing is going off track.

 

Early last season, a video clip of my swing showed at P5 (top) I have reached past my natural shoulder rotation and am looping the club. This can lead to multiple different positions at P6 through P8 as I simultaneously try to regain my balance and hit the ball.

 

Solution: I have to get back the feel of when I'm at the top, and not go past it. P5 is the clue, but regaining the feel during the swing motion is the cure.

 

In the mid-1900s, golf pro Manuel de la Torre compiled the ideas on a simple approach to golf: swing the clubhead... Motion over position. The idea was to harness the person's intuitive ability to tease out the motions of the golf swing.

 

One current MdT practitioner gave this example: Let's say I show you a tennis ball and say "catch." As I toss it, do you think of muscular extension and contraction and a P4 to P5 transition, or do you focus on catching the ball and let your natural instincts take over? 

 

MdT would show a golfer the details of grip and setup, and then emphasize these two points:

Backswing: Use both hands to swing the clubhead in the direction of the right shoulder

Downswing: Use both arms to swing the whole club in the direction of the target

 

I see this tease out in interesting ways with modern instructors. Some will give you a video clip summary of your lesson: before and after. Another will give you a still shot of a critical position: before and after. Despite the fact they will show you a critical position, He worries that a student will  take the video and do a lot of stop action will distract the golfer from developing the proper motion and its feel.

 

One teaching pro I worked with was well versed in electronic aids to help build a swing. But, he said it all comes down to this: "Sooner or later, you have to step up and hit the  *%# ball."

Top of the swing is P4, so maybe that is your issue lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Our picks

    • 2021 American Express WITB & Equipment Photos- Links and comments
      We are back on the ground at the American Express PGA event.
       
      Here are links to all the galleries:
       
      Cameron putters - 2021 American Express
      PXG Gen 4 prototype drivers - new putters
      UST Maymiya LinQ shafts - American Express 2021
      Mitsubishi Kaili & MMT shafts - American Express 2021
      Titleist TSi 2 & TSi 3 hybrids - American Express 2021
      TaylorMade putter cover for Palm Springs/Palm Desert - American Express
      New Aldila Synergy, Ascent & prototype shafts - American Express 2021
      Callaway Apex Pro iron, Epic Driver and fairway, Apex iron & hybrid - American Express 2021
      New Perfect Practice training aids - American Express 2021
      New KBS prototype shafts - American Express 2021
       
        • Like
      • 17 replies
    • Kevin Na WITB: 2021 Sony Open Winner (pics and specs)
      Kevin Na's What's In The Bag?
       
      Specs are on the front-page as well-
      https://www.golfwrx.com/645178/kevin-nas-winning-witb-2021-sony-open/
       
      Driver- Callaway GBB Epic (9 degrees) Graphite Design Tour AD GP 6 TX
      3w- Callaway Epic Flash Sub Zero (13.5 degrees) Mitsubishi Diamana RF 70 TX
      5w- Callaway Epic Flash Sub Zero (18 degrees) Mitsubishi Diamana RF 80 TX
      Hybrid- PXG 0317 X Gen 2 (19 degrees) Graphite Design Tour AD DI 95X
      Irons- Callaway Rogue Pro (4), Callaway Apex Pro 16 (5-PW) True Temper Dynamic Gold Tour Issue S400
      Wedges- Callaway Mack Daddy 4 (54), Vokey Design prototype (’18) (60-06K ) True Temper Dynamic Gold Tour Issue S400
      Putter- Odyssey Toulon Madison
      Grips- Golf Pride Tour Velvet Plus4
      Ball- Titleist Pro V1x
       

       
        • Like
      • 45 replies
    • SIM up close
      Here some pictures up close of the SIM only for now.  
       
      Wk
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 170 replies
    • 2021 EQUIPMENT LAUNCHES (Running thread of all our launch pieces)
      A continually updated table of contents of our front page 2021 equipment launch stories for your reading pleasure. 
       

      Callaway
      Apex irons, Apex Pro irons, Apex DCB irons Apex hybrids, Apex Pro hybrids  
      Mizuno 
      MCraft putters
      Ping
      G425 driver G425 fairway woods, hybrids and crossover G425 irons
       
      PXG 
      PXG 0211 series
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 59 replies
    • JT with a Ventus in the Tsi3?
      https://www.instagram.com/p/CJo-yEVDcyC/?igshid=1llg9lvv71oco
      • 212 replies

×
×
  • Create New...