distance debate

[Titleist99]

23 minutes ago, gvogel said:

I have said in the past, in this thread, that I advocate reducing the size of the driver head to somewhere between 200 cc and 230cc.

Wouldn't that be grounds for CBS and NBC to force a renegotiation in the television contract if you changed the game to that extent?

[milesgiles]

3 hours ago, Simpsonia said:

 

 

Sorry, so it was 2.7 stimp in 1963's US Open, and I did misquote the length of the grass. That was from the 1922. But it was still fairly close at 1/5" in 1973, and in 1978 they averaged 6.5 stimp. 

 

https://www.gcmonline.com/course/environment/news/green-speed-history 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/in-the-race-to-faster-greens-caution-signs-abound-us-open#:~:text=A 2016 Metropolitan Golf Association,study that introduced the Stimpmeter.

 

But I did find it funny how you absolutely demanded I provide proof, but when we ask you for backup or reasoning for your glib assertions, all we get is "read the 74 page thread". I'll probably bow out of this thread now, as it's clear that you have no interest in actually debating, rather making baseless assertions without any sort of backup or reasoning. 

 

 

 

the DESIGN of the stimpmeter changed significantly. 2.7 with the old stimpmeter was nowhere near 2.7 with the modern one. 

 

Basic common sense should tell you that. Try a stimpmeter in 2" rough you'll get more than 2.7 feet.

 

 

[milesgiles]

5 hours ago, clevited said:

 

He got ya man, just own it and move on.

 

Well no, neither of you realised that the design of the stimpmeter changed. I was always told you have two ears and one mouth, and its best to use them in that same ratio.

[clevited]

22 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

Well no, neither of you realised that the design of the stimpmeter changed. I was always told you have two ears and one mouth, and its best to use them in that same ratio.

 

He still got ya man, those little details don't matter.  Man up, take the L.

[milesgiles]

5 hours ago, Simpsonia said:

 

 

Sorry, so it was 2.7 stimp in 1963's US Open, and I did misquote the length of the grass. That was from the 1922. But it was still fairly close at 1/5" in 1973, and in 1978 they averaged 6.5 stimp. 

 

https://www.gcmonline.com/course/environment/news/green-speed-history 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/in-the-race-to-faster-greens-caution-signs-abound-us-open#:~:text=A 2016 Metropolitan Golf Association,study that introduced the Stimpmeter.

 

But I did find it funny how you absolutely demanded I provide proof, but when we ask you for backup or reasoning for your glib assertions, all we get is "read the 74 page thread". I'll probably bow out of this thread now, as it's clear that you have no interest in actually debating, rather making baseless assertions without any sort of backup or reasoning. 

 

 

 

you dont get any more of a glib assertion than greens that ran at 2.7... 

 

they didnt, the design of the stimpmeter changed, as Im sure anyone halfway sensible would have realised 

[Simpsonia]

1 hour ago, milesgiles said:

 

the DESIGN of the stimpmeter changed significantly. 2.7 with the old stimpmeter was nowhere near 2.7 with the modern one. 

 

Basic common sense should tell you that. Try a stimpmeter in 2" rough you'll get more than 2.7 feet.

 

 

 

And see this is where you provide a source that explains how the design changed and what effect it would have on the measured speed. Or have you explained that somewhere else in the 75 pages of this thread and I need to go hunting for it?

 

From what I can find, there have only been 3 revisions of the Stimpmeter. The original which remained the same until '76 when the USGA standardized it (which keeps the average 6.5 numbers from the '78 USGA study completely accurate), and the 2013 revision which didn't change speed at all, just made tolerances more accurate and added an additional slot for slow speed measurements.

 

Do you have a source on this that there was a very significant change to the angle or length of the original Stimpmeter and the '76 version that would account for your claimed massive difference between 2.7 stimp at the '63 Open? 

[gvogel]

2 hours ago, Titleist99 said:

Wouldn't that be grounds for CBS and NBC to force a renegotiation in the television contract if you changed the game to that extent?

Well now, that change might make the  final nine holes more exciting, because long, accurate driving might not be a given.  There would be a real challenge getting into the club house with a two stroke lead after the 10th hole.

[milesgiles]

29 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

And see this is where you provide a source that explains how the design changed and what effect it would have on the measured speed. Or have you explained that somewhere else in the 75 pages of this thread and I need to go hunting for it?

 

From what I can find, there have only been 3 revisions of the Stimpmeter. The original which remained the same until '76 when the USGA standardized it (which keeps the average 6.5 numbers from the '78 USGA study completely accurate), and the 2013 revision which didn't change speed at all, just made tolerances more accurate and added an additional slot for slow speed measurements.

 

Do you have a source on this that there was a very significant change to the angle or length of the original Stimpmeter and the '76 version that would account for your claimed massive difference between 2.7 stimp at the '63 Open? 

 

if you recall, it was you who made the 'glib assertion' that I wanted greens at 2.7

 

Thats on you to show 2.7 is comparable to 2.7 now. I know the design changed, and as I have at least half a teaspoon of brains I know perfectly well they arent.

[ac6]

I check in here every time there's a new page to see if any of the participants have died of exhaustion or old age yet. 

 

Carry on, gentlemen

[Titleist99]

59 minutes ago, gvogel said:

Well now, that change might make the  final nine holes more exciting, because long, accurate driving might not be a given.  There would be a real challenge getting into the club house with a two stroke lead after the 10th hole.

You don't know that and neither do I...... I would have to see the case study on that. If the USGA and R&A thought it would help grow the game or make it more exciting, I would think that we'd already have it, meaning a study.

[ThinkingPlus]

13 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

Did you read this > https://datagolf.com/importance-of-driving-distance ?  Take a look at the first graph and use the toggle to switch the years it graphs.

 

Maybe I misread the article but it seemed like it was saying that driving distance had increased in importance to scoring, especially since 2004.  Accuracy's impact also went up somewhat since 2004 as well but from all the years graphed it has went down. 

The author mentions a bunch of stuff.  Some seems well supported, but other stuff seems squishy.  Hard to get a clear understanding given that writeup and the caveats down below.  The data does seem to support that driving distance has increased in importance in recent history, but was equally important near the beginning year of the analysis which is odd.  Accuracy increasing in importance along with driving distance suggests that long and straight still gains the most advantage as it always has.  Not too surprising. 

 

Gets a little confusing when he starts talking about correlations between driving distance and good approach or good putting.  Sometimes the correlations make sense (good swingers are good swingers - driving and approach).  Other times it may be getting psychological like long drivers are more confident so they putt better?  Even he doesn't have a good answer for some of the data.

[smashdn]

I also can't get on board with the correlating putting in there.  But being an accurate iron player usually means you are decently accurate with driver as well.

[clevited]

I was watching a replay of 2018 Ryder Cup, Rahm vs Tiger.  Missing the fairway was extremely penal to the point where Rahm was rewarded for his accuracy extensively and Tiger had to work extremely hard to match him.  All this makes me think of how people think Tiger is some flawless God (and don't give me the injured excuse) but he can't keep a driver or fairway wood off the tee in the fairway and he is supposedly such an amazing ball striker.  It just goes to show that the game is incredibly difficult and when these guys hit any club straight, even the toaster on a stick, they still had to get a lot of stuff right to make it look so easy.  Path, face to path, strike horizontally, strike vertically, account for wind, account for slope of fairway, account for likely miss, account for pin location and where you want to be hitting your second shot from etc etc.  Then there is the forgiveness thing always touted.  The nuance of that is that a slight miss hit may be punished less from a ball speed perspective vs the old stuff, but that isn't always a good thing.  It can veer off into trouble while an old persimmon would stay in play but just be shorter.  I really think the devil is in the details and most don't pay attention to the details that want a roll back of any kind.

 

Skill is downplayed too much by too many touting the need for a roll back of some sort.  These guys are really good but even the best screw up plenty, you just see the best on tv and it gives a skewed idea that it is so incredibly easy and therefore boring and doesn't require skill.  It looks incredibly easy when your plan goes mostly right, and you execute the shots you need to make.  It looks much less easy when you are constantly playing from the woods, or deep rough or a hazard like Phil often did and Tiger often did against Rahm.

 

Shoot, maybe what would make all of you happy is to scatter trees all throughout the fairway such that there is no way you won't have a scramble shot of some sort that requires hitting a low bullet fade to get through an opening and onto the green.  Tee shots would be a game of plinko unless you got lucky or could somehow thread one between them on purpose from hundreds of yards out.

 

I should be a golf course architect, bet I can solve all this with one or two non traditional courses. 😇

Edited May 6, 2022 by clevited

[Titleist99]

1 hour ago, clevited said:

I was watching a replay of 2018 Ryder Cup, Rahm vs Tiger.  Missing the fairway was extremely penal to the point where Rahm was rewarded for his accuracy extensively and Tiger had to work extremely hard to match him.  All this makes me think of how people think Tiger is some flawless God (and don't give me the injured excuse) but he can't keep a driver or fairway wood off the tee in the fairway and he is supposedly such an amazing ball striker.  It just goes to show that the game is incredibly difficult and when these guys hit any club straight, even the toaster on a stick, they still had to get a lot of stuff right to make it look so easy.  Path, face to path, strike horizontally, strike vertically, account for wind, account for slope of fairway, account for likely miss, account for pin location and where you want to be hitting your second shot from etc etc.  Then there is the forgiveness thing always touted.  The nuance of that is that a slight miss hit may be punished less from a ball speed perspective vs the old stuff, but that isn't always a good thing.  It can veer off into trouble while an old persimmon would stay in play but just be shorter.  I really think the devil is in the details and most don't pay attention to the details that want a roll back of any kind.

 

Skill is downplayed too much by too many touting the need for a roll back of some sort.  These guys are really good but even the best screw up plenty, you just see the best on tv and it gives a skewed idea that it is so incredibly easy and therefore boring and doesn't require skill.  It looks incredibly easy when your plan goes mostly right, and you execute the shots you need to make.  It looks much less easy when you are constantly playing from the woods, or deep rough or a hazard like Phil often did and Tiger often did against Rahm.

 

Shoot, maybe what would make all of you happy is to scatter trees all throughout the fairway such that there is no way you won't have a scramble shot of some sort that requires hitting a low bullet fade to get through an opening and onto the green.  Tee shots would be a game of plinko unless you got lucky or could somehow thread one between them on purpose from hundreds of yards out.

 

I should be a golf course architect, bet I can solve all this with one or two non traditional courses. 😇

Of all the ridiculousness for an equipment rollback I find the talking point that (todays clubs are taking away the skill and pros don't hit shots anymore.) I watch tournaments and see the shot tracker and the pros are hitting the correct shot called for and shaping plenty of shots. 

Contrary  to popular belief on this fine board you can't walk into Dick's Sporting Goods and buy yourself a golf game with a new 460cc driver, it's not that easy.

 You don't have to be architect to solve this problem, all you have to be is the guy in charge of setting up courses for the PGATOUR.

[smashdn]

3 hours ago, clevited said:

I was watching a replay of 2018 Ryder Cup, Rahm vs Tiger.  Missing the fairway was extremely penal to the point where Rahm was rewarded for his accuracy extensively and Tiger had to work extremely hard to match him.  All this makes me think of how people think Tiger is some flawless God (and don't give me the injured excuse) but he can't keep a driver or fairway wood off the tee in the fairway and he is supposedly such an amazing ball striker. 

 

Tiger was Tiger (before injuries and well before 2018) because of his long iron game and his distance.  Because he was long(er) with any club off the tee he could afford to throttle back and hit that 2 iron stinger off the tee to keep it in play.  Because he was such an outstanding long iron player, he could afford to have a longer approach shot into the green.

 

For the 2018 season, Woods and Rahm were in the bottom half on accuracy off the tee and only a few spots apart.

 

3 hours ago, clevited said:

The nuance of that is that a slight miss hit may be punished less from a ball speed perspective vs the old stuff, but that isn't always a good thing.  It can veer off into trouble while an old persimmon would stay in play but just be shorter.  I really think the devil is in the details and most don't pay attention to the details that want a roll back of any kind.

 

Because I switch back and forth between sets pretty regular I will tell you that I do not find this to be the case.  My miss with modern driver is a push to a push fade.  That same miss with persimmon is a short ugly slice.  Gear effect seems to play a bigger role with persimmon to me.  Catching the ball low on the face of a persimmon driver is way, way more punishing than with a modern one.  I'll do the spray deodorant thing with my modern driver and will catch it low.  It produces a low driving ball ball.  Persimmon has a ton of overspin that nets a beautiful running shot well below the wind affectionately known as a worm burner.

 

Ball speed is less certainly.  I can't really change my rhythm and throttle back with persimmon the way I should.

 

Edited May 6, 2022 by smashdn

[clevited]

2 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

Tiger was Tiger (before injuries and well before 2018) because of his long iron game and his distance.  Because he was long(er) with any club off the tee he could afford to throttle back and hit that 2 iron stinger off the tee to keep it in play.  Because he was such an outstanding long iron player, he could afford to have a longer approach shot into the green.

 

For the 2018 season, Woods and Rahm were in the bottom half on accuracy off the tee and only a few spots apart.

 

 

Because I switch back and forth between sets pretty regular I will tell you that I do not find this to be the case.  My miss with modern driver is a push to a push fade.  That same miss with persimmon is a short ugly slice.  Gear effect seems to play a bigger role with persimmon to me.  Catching the ball low on the face of a persimmon driver is way, way more punishing than with a modern one.  I'll do the spray deodorant thing with my modern driver and will catch it low.  It produces a low driving ball ball.  Persimmon has a ton of overspin that nets a beautiful running shot well below the wind affectionately known as a worm burner.

 

Ball speed is less certainly.  I can't really change my rhythm and throttle back with persimmon the way I should.

 

 

Tiger can't be great at striking his long irons and not great striking his driver and fairway woods, the easiest clubs in the bag according to some.  Those really cannot coexist unless........the longer clubs are harder to hit than his shorter tinier irons?  So much harder in fact, that even an amazing "ball striker" (really hate that term to be honest) struggles with them.  Remember, modern clubs are longer than old clubs, so it becomes even more critical that your swing is consistent and you get all of the elements of a swing right.  

 

You might want to get a different wooden driver.  I have a laminated one from the 70s and I have taken it to the range quite a few times and I don't have nearly as much trouble with it as you describe and I would be willing to bet I hit a lot harder and miss a lot worse than you.  Not all wooden clubs are created equal, that is one thing I learned after collecting a few over the years.

Edited May 6, 2022 by clevited

[MUNIGRIT]

5 hours ago, clevited said:

I was watching a replay of 2018 Ryder Cup, Rahm vs Tiger.  Missing the fairway was extremely penal to the point where Rahm was rewarded for his accuracy extensively and Tiger had to work extremely hard to match him.  All this makes me think of how people think Tiger is some flawless God (and don't give me the injured excuse) but he can't keep a driver or fairway wood off the tee in the fairway and he is supposedly such an amazing ball striker.  It just goes to show that the game is incredibly difficult and when these guys hit any club straight, even the toaster on a stick, they still had to get a lot of stuff right to make it look so easy.  Path, face to path, strike horizontally, strike vertically, account for wind, account for slope of fairway, account for likely miss, account for pin location and where you want to be hitting your second shot from etc etc.  Then there is the forgiveness thing always touted.  The nuance of that is that a slight miss hit may be punished less from a ball speed perspective vs the old stuff, but that isn't always a good thing.  It can veer off into trouble while an old persimmon would stay in play but just be shorter.  I really think the devil is in the details and most don't pay attention to the details that want a roll back of any kind.

 

Skill is downplayed too much by too many touting the need for a roll back of some sort.  These guys are really good but even the best screw up plenty, you just see the best on tv and it gives a skewed idea that it is so incredibly easy and therefore boring and doesn't require skill.  It looks incredibly easy when your plan goes mostly right, and you execute the shots you need to make.  It looks much less easy when you are constantly playing from the woods, or deep rough or a hazard like Phil often did and Tiger often did against Rahm.

 

Shoot, maybe what would make all of you happy is to scatter trees all throughout the fairway such that there is no way you won't have a scramble shot of some sort that requires hitting a low bullet fade to get through an opening and onto the green.  Tee shots would be a game of plinko unless you got lucky or could somehow thread one between them on purpose from hundreds of yards out.

 

I should be a golf course architect, bet I can solve all this with one or two non traditional courses. 😇

The accuracy guys told me how important it is at one of the toughest courses in the world and played under the USO. No way could a Bryson do anything there. Who were the 2 guys that could have won that tournament? 

[Golferpaul]

On 5/5/2022 at 7:48 AM, smashdn said:

 

Did you read this > https://datagolf.com/importance-of-driving-distance ?  Take a look at the first graph and use the toggle to switch the years it graphs.

 

Maybe I misread the article but it seemed like it was saying that driving distance had increased in importance to scoring, especially since 2004.  Accuracy's impact also went up somewhat since 2004 as well but from all the years graphed it has went down. 

This is a very interesting study.  The bottom line is that the same skill used to hit it long is used to hit irons close, to chip, and to putt.  That's why men are better than women in every aspect of the game.  Strength matters in golf.

 

Another way to consider this is to compare a 5 handicap golfer to a 15 handicap. The 5-handicap will be better in every aspect of the game 99% of the time.

 

So, Jack and Tiger were not better because they hit it longer than most pros, but they hit it longer because they had better skills.

[smashdn]

19 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Tiger can't be great at striking his long irons and not great striking his driver and fairway woods, the easiest clubs in the bag according to some.  Those really cannot coexist unless........the longer clubs are harder to hit than his shorter tinier irons?  So much harder in fact, that even an amazing "ball striker" (really hate that term to be honest) struggles with them.  Remember, modern clubs are longer than old clubs, so it becomes even more critical that your swing is consistent and you get all of the elements of a swing right.

 

Just telling you what I remember from Every Shot Counts.  

 

I just kept the 2018 date and looked up GIR percentage from 175-200 yards.  El Tigre was 27th.  In 2007 he was 1st.  In 2002 he was T2 (data didn't go back to 1998 and he didn't show up in 2001 data set.) 

 

In 2018 he was 127 in driving accuracy.  In 2007 he was 152 in driving accuracy.  In 1998 he was 116.

 

I was going to at first say that I did not recall Tiger ever being an incredibly accurate driver of the golf ball.  I knew that ESC sort of had a chapter on what made Tiger so much better than the field and it was his ability to hit long irons.  He was chasing distance with driver before distance was cool.

 

I think attempting to draw a conclusion regarding how equipment plays, or doesn't, for the whole, is dangerous using only one player as your basis.  Hard to know what his thought process was regarding driving the ball.  Stenson doesn't carry a driver often yet hits a 3w fairly well.  

 

On the surface I would say that longer clubs should be harder to hit.  I have also read where some teachers do not advocate any longer to amateur golfers to step down to a 3w if driver is not behaving.  The crux was that there was (at the time I read the article) way more technology and forgiveness engineered into the driver than the 3w.  Now it might be argued that the 3w has caught up somewhat.

 

19 minutes ago, clevited said:

You might want to get a different wooden driver.  I have a laminated one from the 70s and I have taken it to the range quite a few times and I don't have nearly as much trouble with it as you describe and I would be willing to bet I hit a lot harder and miss a lot worse than you.  Not all wooden clubs are created equal, that is one thing I learned after collecting a few over the years.

 

I have five persimmon drivers now that I rotate through.  A Hogan, a Mac, a Cobra, a Penna and a Powerbilt.  The Mac is the best of the bunch but can't bring myself to play it when the rest of the bag is all Hogan.  So I am building a Mac bag.  Still working on it.  Have irons, no wedges or putter yet.

 

A 1/4" miss with persimmon behaves differently than a 1/4" miss with modern clubs.  It isn't just a loss of distance.

[smashdn]

38 minutes ago, MUNIGRIT said:

The accuracy guys told me how important it is at one of the toughest courses in the world and played under the USO. No way could a Bryson do anything there. Who were the 2 guys that could have won that tournament? 

 

What is better, being 120 yards away from the green in US Open rough or 160 yards away from the green in US Open rough?

 

If you narrow the fairways to the point it becomes a crap shoot whether your ball stays in them or not, why not swing for the fences and at worst be in the rough closer to the green than the rest of the field.  If you do come up with a fairway drive so much the better as you now should have a decided advantage over the field and a chance at scoring.

 

That is why I think the "just grow the rough out" (amongst other course and set up "fixes") is not a fix either. 

 

Also why the "you guys just want short knockers to win" argument doesn't work for me either.  At pro swing speeds they are all "unlocking" the trampoline effect of driver faces and the ball.  Shorter pros will still be shorter pros and likely shorter by the same margin they are today.  At amateur swing speeds you have some that swing fast enough and some that don't.  The ones that do would be effected by a rollback of COR.  The ones that don't wouldn't be (as much).  So I can't foresee it as a "the sky is falling for amateur golfers" scenario if they wanted to roll it back.  I truly believe it would only impact significantly the higher swing peed players, and that is the group that needs a little reigning in.

Edited May 6, 2022 by smashdn

[Nard_S]

44 minutes ago, clevited said:

Tiger can't be great at striking his long irons and not great striking his driver and fairway woods,

Tiger is statistically the best iron player ever. At least since they've been tracking those stats. So maybe Hogan could have been in the hunt, but we will not know.

[iGolf67]

Seems like a solution in search of a problem. Maybe this is simplistic, but instead of making equipment changes make golf courses "smarter". For example, if a touring professional knows the rough poses no problem, why not try to hit it as far as possible? However, if the rough is penal, perhaps that takes the "gouge" out of "bomb and gouge"? Given that most venues don't offer challenging rough, "fairways hit" becomes a meaningless statistic, and caters more to the bomb and gouge golfer than the shotmaking golfer. 

[Titleist99]

2 minutes ago, iGolf67 said:

Seems like a solution in search of a problem. Maybe this is simplistic, but instead of making equipment changes make golf courses "smarter". For example, if a touring professional knows the rough poses no problem, why not try to hit it as far as possible? However, if the rough is penal, perhaps that takes the "gouge" out of "bomb and gouge"? Given that most venues don't offer challenging rough, "fairways hit" becomes a meaningless statistic, and caters more to the bomb and gouge golfer than the shotmaking golfer. 

If you and I know this, surely the PGATOUR knows this.....which brings me to the conclusion that the PGATOUR has the rough right where they want it. Non-Penal.

[MUNIGRIT]

5 minutes ago, iGolf67 said:

Seems like a solution in search of a problem. Maybe this is simplistic, but instead of making equipment changes make golf courses "smarter". For example, if a touring professional knows the rough poses no problem, why not try to hit it as far as possible? However, if the rough is penal, perhaps that takes the "gouge" out of "bomb and gouge"? Given that most venues don't offer challenging rough, "fairways hit" becomes a meaningless statistic, and caters more to the bomb and gouge golfer than the shotmaking golfer. 

Hate to tell you rough favors bomb and gouge. 

[TLUBulldogGolf]

On 5/5/2022 at 12:16 PM, milesgiles said:

 

the DESIGN of the stimpmeter changed significantly. 2.7 with the old stimpmeter was nowhere near 2.7 with the modern one. 

 

Basic common sense should tell you that. Try a stimpmeter in 2" rough you'll get more than 2.7 feet.

 

 

 

I guess it's not so common then? No chance you are. 

[milesgiles]

14 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

 

I guess it's not so common then? No chance you are. 

 

 

no chance I am what?

[TLUBulldogGolf]

Just now, milesgiles said:

 

 

no chance I am what?

 

You think a ball rolled off a stimpmeter in 2" rough is rolling more than 2.7 feet?

[milesgiles]

1 hour ago, clevited said:

 

Tiger can't be great at striking his long irons and not great striking his driver and fairway woods, the easiest clubs in the bag according to some.  Those really cannot coexist unless........the longer clubs are harder to hit than his shorter tinier irons?  So much harder in fact, that even an amazing "ball striker" (really hate that term to be honest) struggles with them.  Remember, modern clubs are longer than old clubs, so it becomes even more critical that your swing is consistent and you get all of the elements of a swing right.  

 

You might want to get a different wooden driver.  I have a laminated one from the 70s and I have taken it to the range quite a few times and I don't have nearly as much trouble with it as you describe and I would be willing to bet I hit a lot harder and miss a lot worse than you.  Not all wooden clubs are created equal, that is one thing I learned after collecting a few over the years.

 

please film it so we can all see how easy it is to hit. No editing, I want to see a few consecutive shots.

 

Although of course, if it makes no difference lets just get rid and we are all happy 

[milesgiles]

2 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

 

You think a ball rolled off a stimpmeter in 2" rough is rolling more than 2.7 feet?

 

I can try it tomorrow if you like, whats the bet?

Edited May 6, 2022 by milesgiles

[Titleist99]

8 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

I can try it tomorrow if you like, whats the bet?

No, just film it so we all can see........