Question - is golf a dying sport?
Well I hope this does not happen, but here is a nightmare scenario. In this ever changing world there are times when things must adapt or die, and golf purists refuse to adapt by trying to make the game more fun for the masses. Once upon a time, golf was a sport only for rich people. Today it is for all people, but I see municipal courses closing because the land is very valuable near cities, so new courses must be built in the boonies, and it is becoming more expensive to play, not to mention the price of gas to get there. What few courses remain near cities are already overcrowded because they are the only places people can afford to play. The pace of play is horrible, so with these factors there is danger that many people might give up the game. If overcrowding gets bad enough, we might have to do what other countries are already doing, and that is to prove that your game is good enough to qualify to be allowed to play at certain courses. This leaves out lots of people who enjoy the game but are not good enough to qualify, which is the opposite of growing the game. As a result, golf may go back to being a game only for the rich, and then it will be even more difficult to grow the game. Today there are admirable programs that are trying to get kids involved, but will these same kids be able to afford to play later on? And when Tiger retires, will anyone else be able to capture the interest of the fans as much? If not, this downward spiral may begin. Prize money will come down, and the popularity of the game will decline. Then more courses might close. Somebody stop me before I start to cry. We need more ideas on how to grow the game, and we need them quick. Insanity is expecting things to get better while you continue to do things the same way.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Joe, I read in a magazine recently that if you start your swing and while you are swinging the ball happens to move either by wind or soft grass giving way, that you are deemed to have moved the ball and therefore it is a penalty. What do you think about that?
Answer: It takes a lot of wisdom to say you are deemed to have moved the ball when you clearly did not, so by the same logic I think the rules makers are deemed to be idiots.
Answer: It takes a lot of wisdom to say you are deemed to have moved the ball when you clearly did not, so by the same logic I think the rules makers are deemed to be idiots.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Joe,
I am bigger and stronger than my buddies and I can hit a softball farther than them, but they hit a golf ball farther than me. How do you explain that?
Big John
Hi John,
There is a big difference in the weight of a softball and bat versus golf club and golf ball. Since you are stronger, you are more able to drive the heavier bat thru the heavier ball, more so than your smaller buddies. You probably have more of an arm swing than your buddies, and it might be harder for you to generate any extra speed with a golf club. Since a golf club and ball are much lighter, your buddies can use more wrist action to generate speed, especially if their timing is right. This can best be illustrated by using a ping pong ball and paddle. If you swing very hard with your arms, but with no wrist action, the ball will not go very far. If you swing with all wrist action, but no arms, the ball still will not go very far. So obviously the answer is the combination of arm and wrist action. However, timing makes the biggest difference for distance. If you use the wrist too soon, you end up with only arm action at the point of impact, hence the term "hitting from the top", and you get poor distance. You can send the ping pong ball the farthest by swinging your arms first, and delaying the wrist action until the last possible instant. This timing of the wrist snap is most important because it does not just ADD arm speed plus wrist speed, it actually MULTIPLIES them. Think about swinging easy with the arms and hard with the wrist at the last possible moment. Try this with the ping pong ball and paddle and you will see how this will increase distance, then use the same idea with a golf club. Watch the slow motion replays of the pros on TV, this is exactly how they get great distance with a seemingly effortless swing.
I am bigger and stronger than my buddies and I can hit a softball farther than them, but they hit a golf ball farther than me. How do you explain that?
Big John
Hi John,
There is a big difference in the weight of a softball and bat versus golf club and golf ball. Since you are stronger, you are more able to drive the heavier bat thru the heavier ball, more so than your smaller buddies. You probably have more of an arm swing than your buddies, and it might be harder for you to generate any extra speed with a golf club. Since a golf club and ball are much lighter, your buddies can use more wrist action to generate speed, especially if their timing is right. This can best be illustrated by using a ping pong ball and paddle. If you swing very hard with your arms, but with no wrist action, the ball will not go very far. If you swing with all wrist action, but no arms, the ball still will not go very far. So obviously the answer is the combination of arm and wrist action. However, timing makes the biggest difference for distance. If you use the wrist too soon, you end up with only arm action at the point of impact, hence the term "hitting from the top", and you get poor distance. You can send the ping pong ball the farthest by swinging your arms first, and delaying the wrist action until the last possible instant. This timing of the wrist snap is most important because it does not just ADD arm speed plus wrist speed, it actually MULTIPLIES them. Think about swinging easy with the arms and hard with the wrist at the last possible moment. Try this with the ping pong ball and paddle and you will see how this will increase distance, then use the same idea with a golf club. Watch the slow motion replays of the pros on TV, this is exactly how they get great distance with a seemingly effortless swing.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Bob writes about Denis Watson losing the 1985 US Open due to the ten second penalty, which I said was an atrocity:
Joe, if you knew the rule, perhaps your comments would hold more water. Many times your humorous replies are not only demeaning to those of us who play by the rules but your answers are incorrect, thus further confusing those who read your rants on the rules. The ten seconds does not start until the player reaches the ball, without undue delay. If the ball is not holed within that 10 seconds, it is deemed to be at rest (which is the part of the rule Denis violated). If it subsequently falls into the hole the player is deemed to have holed out with his previous stroke and must add ONE penalty stroke to his score. It is interesting that you use Denis Watson as his example. Following this incident, the USGA changed the penalty for this infraction because they felt two strokes was too severe.
Response: They changed something? What a concept, I thought that was not allowed. I guess losing the US Open on a technicality does seem a bit severe. Using the same logic, maybe all 2 stroke penalties are too severe, right?
Bob continues: When any part of the ball overhangs the lip of the hole, the player is allowed enough time to reach the hole without unreasonable delay and an additional ten seconds to determine whether the ball is at rest. If by then the ball has not fallen into the hole, it is deemed to be at rest. If the ball subsequently falls into the hole, the player is deemed to have holed out with his last stroke, and he must add a penalty stroke to his score for the hole; otherwise, there is no penalty under this Rule.
Response: Was an official Olympic stopwatch used to time the ten seconds or how many seconds constitute an unreasonable delay to reach the hole? If not, how do you know if it was not 9.9 seconds when the ball fell in the hole? Furthermore, if you try to beat the ten second rule, and the ball really was moving while you tap it in, that should also be a penalty, right?
Bob continues: Additionally, there are only 34 rules and the "Rule Book" is no where near 150 pages. The rule book will easily fit in a small pocket on a bag or even in a back pocket.
Response: I do not know which version of the rule book you are holding. I am holding the USGA 2006-2007 version, and the text with Appendices goes up to page 140 followed by the index which goes to page 164. Geez what a complicated game. No wonder some new people are too intimidated by this to stay with this game.
Bob continues: It takes no longer to play by the rules than is does not to, and to many of us it is very enjoyable to do so.
Response: Tell that to the recreational golfer waiting on the tee while the group ahead marches back to the same tee to replay a shot instead of dropping at the spot where a ball was lost. Bob, I mean no disrespect. Obviously you are passionate about the game, so all your comments are appreciated and should be discussed. I just think the rules are overly complicated and could use a good dose of common sense.
Joe, if you knew the rule, perhaps your comments would hold more water. Many times your humorous replies are not only demeaning to those of us who play by the rules but your answers are incorrect, thus further confusing those who read your rants on the rules. The ten seconds does not start until the player reaches the ball, without undue delay. If the ball is not holed within that 10 seconds, it is deemed to be at rest (which is the part of the rule Denis violated). If it subsequently falls into the hole the player is deemed to have holed out with his previous stroke and must add ONE penalty stroke to his score. It is interesting that you use Denis Watson as his example. Following this incident, the USGA changed the penalty for this infraction because they felt two strokes was too severe.
Response: They changed something? What a concept, I thought that was not allowed. I guess losing the US Open on a technicality does seem a bit severe. Using the same logic, maybe all 2 stroke penalties are too severe, right?
Bob continues: When any part of the ball overhangs the lip of the hole, the player is allowed enough time to reach the hole without unreasonable delay and an additional ten seconds to determine whether the ball is at rest. If by then the ball has not fallen into the hole, it is deemed to be at rest. If the ball subsequently falls into the hole, the player is deemed to have holed out with his last stroke, and he must add a penalty stroke to his score for the hole; otherwise, there is no penalty under this Rule.
Response: Was an official Olympic stopwatch used to time the ten seconds or how many seconds constitute an unreasonable delay to reach the hole? If not, how do you know if it was not 9.9 seconds when the ball fell in the hole? Furthermore, if you try to beat the ten second rule, and the ball really was moving while you tap it in, that should also be a penalty, right?
Bob continues: Additionally, there are only 34 rules and the "Rule Book" is no where near 150 pages. The rule book will easily fit in a small pocket on a bag or even in a back pocket.
Response: I do not know which version of the rule book you are holding. I am holding the USGA 2006-2007 version, and the text with Appendices goes up to page 140 followed by the index which goes to page 164. Geez what a complicated game. No wonder some new people are too intimidated by this to stay with this game.
Bob continues: It takes no longer to play by the rules than is does not to, and to many of us it is very enjoyable to do so.
Response: Tell that to the recreational golfer waiting on the tee while the group ahead marches back to the same tee to replay a shot instead of dropping at the spot where a ball was lost. Bob, I mean no disrespect. Obviously you are passionate about the game, so all your comments are appreciated and should be discussed. I just think the rules are overly complicated and could use a good dose of common sense.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Your putt stops at the lip of the cup. When you about to tap it in, you notice it is still moving slightly and you mention this to your opponent, but your opponent says you only have ten seconds to tap it in. You cannot hit a moving ball, so you wait an extra moment, and then the ball falls into the cup, and your opponent calls a two stroke penalty on you for taking longer than ten seconds. What would a rules official say about this?
This actually happened to Denis Watson in the 1985 US Open. The rules official imposed a two stroke penalty, and Denis lost the tournament by one stroke.
My Opinion: The ten seconds should begin at the point where the ball comes to rest. If the ball is still slightly moving, the ten second rule should not have been imposed. You cannot say it is ten seconds from when the putt was stroked, some long putts take longer than that to get to the hole. Besides, ten seconds is nothing compared to how long it takes some people to line up their putt and then freeze over the ball. Maybe there should be a time limit for that instead, after all, that is what holds up the pace of play much more than the ten second rule.
Losing the US Open because of this is an atrocity, and one of many reasons why the rules need to be updated and simplified. The object of the game is only to hit a ball into a hole, so unless you love beaurocracy, there is little reason for the rule book to be over 150 pages long.
This actually happened to Denis Watson in the 1985 US Open. The rules official imposed a two stroke penalty, and Denis lost the tournament by one stroke.
My Opinion: The ten seconds should begin at the point where the ball comes to rest. If the ball is still slightly moving, the ten second rule should not have been imposed. You cannot say it is ten seconds from when the putt was stroked, some long putts take longer than that to get to the hole. Besides, ten seconds is nothing compared to how long it takes some people to line up their putt and then freeze over the ball. Maybe there should be a time limit for that instead, after all, that is what holds up the pace of play much more than the ten second rule.
Losing the US Open because of this is an atrocity, and one of many reasons why the rules need to be updated and simplified. The object of the game is only to hit a ball into a hole, so unless you love beaurocracy, there is little reason for the rule book to be over 150 pages long.
Saturday, September 01, 2007
This is about hypocrisy, and what should be done about it. The USGA has recently sent out a message stressing the importance of keeping a good pace of play, but then in the same message it states courses or committees cannot waive a rule for pace of play. Well, I guess it must not be that important after all. To them it makes more sense to follow illogical rules than to have good pace of play. The message says courses or committees should not allow a drop area near a water hazard that happens to be closer to the green than the point where a ball would enter the water. Nor should it be allowed to establish a stroke limit on a hole. Well I guess some poor hapless soul who is having trouble getting the ball airborne is going to have to stay there all day until a shot clears the water hazard or he runs out of balls, too bad about the pace of play for everyone else. Then the message said wooded areas should not be marked as a water hazard because it does not fit the definition. So if you lose a ball in the woods and did not hit a provisional, you must march back to the spot where the original stroke was played and hit again, instead of just dropping where the ball entered the woods, which would save a lot of time. So what should be done about this? Revise any rule that hurts pace of play. For example, create a new rule called Ball Out Of Play, which would replace the separate rules for water hazards, out of bounds, unplayable lies, and lost balls. Think about it, if a ball is out of play, and you are already getting a penalty for that, why should it matter how or the ball went out of play or what color the stakes are? In all those cases, just drop at the nearest point where the ball went out of play, one stroke penalty, and play on. So what if the drop has to be a little closer to the hole, you already have suffered a penalty so big deal, it is not going to affect anyone’s score. This would help pace of play because there would never be a need to replay a shot or to hit a provisional.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Joe,
I am right handed and I have read and heard so many times that the putting stroke is supposed to keep the right hand out of the stroke. I do not understand why. That is like telling me if I want to roll a ball, not to use my right hand. Please explain.
Tony
Hi Tony,
I like your analogy, you raise a good point, why should you not use your dominant hand? Because the back hand supplies power to a swing, this power sometimes creeps into the delicate touch needed to putt on very fast greens. That is why you see some pros use the claw grip so there is no chance that the back hand can overpower the other hand. This does not mean you cannot roll the ball with the back hand. Look at the way Zach Johnson putts. He leans the handle of the putter back behind the ball. This does two things for him. It allows a better view of the clubface to square it up to the target line, and it also reduces the tendency to flip the back wrist, because it is already in a flipped position. This allows a feeling of rolling the ball with the back hand without extra power creeping in to ruin the stroke. By the way, I also use this method and it seems to work well. Good luck and roll on.
Joe
I am right handed and I have read and heard so many times that the putting stroke is supposed to keep the right hand out of the stroke. I do not understand why. That is like telling me if I want to roll a ball, not to use my right hand. Please explain.
Tony
Hi Tony,
I like your analogy, you raise a good point, why should you not use your dominant hand? Because the back hand supplies power to a swing, this power sometimes creeps into the delicate touch needed to putt on very fast greens. That is why you see some pros use the claw grip so there is no chance that the back hand can overpower the other hand. This does not mean you cannot roll the ball with the back hand. Look at the way Zach Johnson putts. He leans the handle of the putter back behind the ball. This does two things for him. It allows a better view of the clubface to square it up to the target line, and it also reduces the tendency to flip the back wrist, because it is already in a flipped position. This allows a feeling of rolling the ball with the back hand without extra power creeping in to ruin the stroke. By the way, I also use this method and it seems to work well. Good luck and roll on.
Joe
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Sometimes I am asked why I criticize the logic of the Rules Of Golf. That was the same question asked to our founding fathers about the rules of taxation in 1776, but they chose to fight injustice rather than just live with it. Good thing they did, or else you would be having tea and crumpets every day instead of Starbucks. Then I am asked to give an example of injustice. OK, if you are in the middle of your swing, and the ball happens to move either from the wind or from soft grass giving way, whatever, the rules say you caused the ball to move, so it is a penalty, even if you stop your swing. But you did not cause the ball to move. Is that justice or injustice? If you think that is a just penalty, then I think you are incapable of rational thought. There are many more examples of similar injustices that, in my opinion, have no business imposing penalties for reasons that have nothing to do with the skill of the game. How people can honor such nonsense is a mystery to me.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
A Bit of Golf Trivia:
Every year, the USGA provides its members with an 18 question quiz, which is an open book quiz with no time limit, so anyone can take their time and look up the answers. In the years 2005 and 2006, there were about 2500 people who provided answers for this quiz. Can you guess within 500, how many people got all the answers correct?
Answer:
In 2005 only 21 people got all the answers correct. In 2006, only 6 got all the answers correct. In 2007, although the year is not over yet, over 1200 entries were submitted, and so far NOBODY has gotten all the answers correct.
Jody, my Evil Twin, stop laughing and tell us what you think about that?
Answer: That just goes to show how ridiculous some of the rules are. Come on people, wake up and smell the coffee. Some of the rules are outdated and unnecessary. This is the enlightened 21st century. The concept of continuous improvement dictates that we should fight to amend the rules so people can understand them. The game should not be so complicated. All you are doing is hitting a ball into a hole. Is there any other sport where such a low percentage of people would pass a rules test? NO, so use a little logic and figure out which are reasonable rules and which others are illogical because they have nothing to do with the skill of the contest, and fight to get those fixed. If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem. And that is the name of that tune.
Every year, the USGA provides its members with an 18 question quiz, which is an open book quiz with no time limit, so anyone can take their time and look up the answers. In the years 2005 and 2006, there were about 2500 people who provided answers for this quiz. Can you guess within 500, how many people got all the answers correct?
Answer:
In 2005 only 21 people got all the answers correct. In 2006, only 6 got all the answers correct. In 2007, although the year is not over yet, over 1200 entries were submitted, and so far NOBODY has gotten all the answers correct.
Jody, my Evil Twin, stop laughing and tell us what you think about that?
Answer: That just goes to show how ridiculous some of the rules are. Come on people, wake up and smell the coffee. Some of the rules are outdated and unnecessary. This is the enlightened 21st century. The concept of continuous improvement dictates that we should fight to amend the rules so people can understand them. The game should not be so complicated. All you are doing is hitting a ball into a hole. Is there any other sport where such a low percentage of people would pass a rules test? NO, so use a little logic and figure out which are reasonable rules and which others are illogical because they have nothing to do with the skill of the contest, and fight to get those fixed. If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem. And that is the name of that tune.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
For many years I have wondered why woods had to have a rounded shape. It made no sense to me because any off center hit will have less mass behind the ball. Consider how irons are perimeter weighted to help an off center hit. I saw no reason why the same concept would not also work for woods. Recently I tried an off brand square driver called a Blockhead since the price was very reasonable, and if it did not work I was just going to donate it as a prize at our next outing. Anyway, I took it to the range and compared results with my regular rounded driver. First few shots were comparable, alternating clubs. Then my rounded driver, as it sometimes does on the course, would hit an occasional hook or slice, but the Blockhead stayed straight, almost every time. I had to tell myself, OK, do not get too excited until it proves itself under playing conditions, and so I used it on the course, and to make a long story short, it is now my first string and second string driver (I bought another one), the rounded one is now third string. The moral of the story seems to be this. Club with curved shape produces curved shots. Club with straighter shape produces straighter shots. Next I think I will look for similar fairway woods and hybrids. Do you think Charlie Brown can guess what my new nickname is?
Regards,
Blockhead Joe
Regards,
Blockhead Joe
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Joe,
Sometimes on a short putt I feel like I am sure that I made a good putting stroke, but the ball sometimes reacts like a pull or a push and it misses the hole. Could it be the dimples on the ball?
Drake
Hello Drake,
You are correct. The Zen putter manufacturer has done some experiments that show striking the ball on the edge of a dimple can send the ball as much as two degrees off line, which can result in a miss from 5 feet. Zen then claims that their putters correct for this because of the way the face is designed, but I do not buy that. I do not see how a milled or grooved face is going to strike the dimple any differently. It was not that long ago when all golf balls had a visible seam where there were no dimples. Golfers used to line up this seam so the putter could strike the ball on that seam where there were no dimples, resulting in a true roll. Today’s ball designs have eliminated the seam in favor of better ball flight on full swings. Then I saw another ad for a ball with no dimples at all, and it was very pricey. However this ball is probably only intended for putting because ball flight will be erratic without dimples, and for competition you cannot switch balls for putting. The only solution that I can think of is to use a ball that has smaller dimples. Anyone else have any ideas on this?
Joe
Sometimes on a short putt I feel like I am sure that I made a good putting stroke, but the ball sometimes reacts like a pull or a push and it misses the hole. Could it be the dimples on the ball?
Drake
Hello Drake,
You are correct. The Zen putter manufacturer has done some experiments that show striking the ball on the edge of a dimple can send the ball as much as two degrees off line, which can result in a miss from 5 feet. Zen then claims that their putters correct for this because of the way the face is designed, but I do not buy that. I do not see how a milled or grooved face is going to strike the dimple any differently. It was not that long ago when all golf balls had a visible seam where there were no dimples. Golfers used to line up this seam so the putter could strike the ball on that seam where there were no dimples, resulting in a true roll. Today’s ball designs have eliminated the seam in favor of better ball flight on full swings. Then I saw another ad for a ball with no dimples at all, and it was very pricey. However this ball is probably only intended for putting because ball flight will be erratic without dimples, and for competition you cannot switch balls for putting. The only solution that I can think of is to use a ball that has smaller dimples. Anyone else have any ideas on this?
Joe
Sunday, July 22, 2007
You Make The Call
A golfer tries to hit a shot over a water hazard marked with yellow stakes. The ball lands on the opposite side, appears to come to a stop, but then trickles down a slope and into the water. Where should the golfer take a drop?
A. On the far side because the ball successfully cleared the water before it rolled back in.
B. On the near side because the shot did not successfully finish on the other side.
(answer is below)
Joe,
Why is it OK to play a provisional ball if you are not sure a ball went out of bounds, but it is not OK to play a provisional if it is a water hazard instead of OB?
Mike
Hi Mike,
The penalty for OB is stroke and distance, so if the ball were OB and you did not hit a provisional, you would have to march back to the tee and play again. The penalty for a water hazard is not stroke and distance, so you can drop near the spot where it entered the water, which eliminates the need to march back to the tee, therefore no need for a provisional.
Joe
Answer to You Make The Call (above): B is correct because you cannot drop closer to the hole from where the ball entered the water.
Jody, my Evil Twin, any comments on that?
Answer: That means if you cannot see whether or not the ball rolled back into the water due to tall grass, and you cannot hit a provisional for water hazards, you have to march all the way around the pond to find out, and if the ball is not there, you have to assume it went into the water, so you have to march all the way back around the pond and play the ball on the other side because you were not allowed to hit a provisional ball for a water hazard because if you did, that ball immediately becomes the ball in play, even if you do happen to find the first ball on the other side. That hinders pace of play and therefore that is a bad rule.
A golfer tries to hit a shot over a water hazard marked with yellow stakes. The ball lands on the opposite side, appears to come to a stop, but then trickles down a slope and into the water. Where should the golfer take a drop?
A. On the far side because the ball successfully cleared the water before it rolled back in.
B. On the near side because the shot did not successfully finish on the other side.
(answer is below)
Joe,
Why is it OK to play a provisional ball if you are not sure a ball went out of bounds, but it is not OK to play a provisional if it is a water hazard instead of OB?
Mike
Hi Mike,
The penalty for OB is stroke and distance, so if the ball were OB and you did not hit a provisional, you would have to march back to the tee and play again. The penalty for a water hazard is not stroke and distance, so you can drop near the spot where it entered the water, which eliminates the need to march back to the tee, therefore no need for a provisional.
Joe
Answer to You Make The Call (above): B is correct because you cannot drop closer to the hole from where the ball entered the water.
Jody, my Evil Twin, any comments on that?
Answer: That means if you cannot see whether or not the ball rolled back into the water due to tall grass, and you cannot hit a provisional for water hazards, you have to march all the way around the pond to find out, and if the ball is not there, you have to assume it went into the water, so you have to march all the way back around the pond and play the ball on the other side because you were not allowed to hit a provisional ball for a water hazard because if you did, that ball immediately becomes the ball in play, even if you do happen to find the first ball on the other side. That hinders pace of play and therefore that is a bad rule.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Joe,
I heard that the balls retrieved from water hazards do not go as far as new balls? Is that true? Do they get a little water logged?
Will
Hi Will,
I have read test reports that showed the "pond" balls travel only a few yards less than new balls on the average. What these tests did not say is how many yards does any ball lose after it has been used for awhile, even without being in a pond. I do not think they get water logged. My guess is that the more a ball is used, the less distance it will travel anyway, pond or no pond. So if you have a lot of money, and you want every single yard possible, just keep buying new balls. If you are like most people who want to save money, you might choose to use "experienced" balls that you find for free and live with the loss of a few yards.
Joe
I heard that the balls retrieved from water hazards do not go as far as new balls? Is that true? Do they get a little water logged?
Will
Hi Will,
I have read test reports that showed the "pond" balls travel only a few yards less than new balls on the average. What these tests did not say is how many yards does any ball lose after it has been used for awhile, even without being in a pond. I do not think they get water logged. My guess is that the more a ball is used, the less distance it will travel anyway, pond or no pond. So if you have a lot of money, and you want every single yard possible, just keep buying new balls. If you are like most people who want to save money, you might choose to use "experienced" balls that you find for free and live with the loss of a few yards.
Joe
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Joe,
What do you think is the best type of putter to buy? Does the shape really matter? Why are the expensive ones any better than the cheap ones?
Preston
Hi Preston,
When you count all the strokes used for each of your clubs for any round, the putter by far is used the most times, so it makes sense to get a putter that you like. That does not mean it has to be an expensive putter. Consider this, even if you have a perfect putting stroke, you still will not make very many putts unless you read the green perfectly, and stroke the putt with the perfect line and the perfect speed, and who is that perfect? To make matters more complicated, even if you read the green correctly and make a perfect stroke, the putt may still hit an imperfection in the green and lip out. The answer to your question, in my opinion, is that there is a good chance you can putt just as well with a cheap putter as you can with an expensive putter, just find one that feels good and have a contest using that one against a borrowed goochy-fufu-expensive one and see which one wins the contest. The mind is a powerful thing, so you are more likely to make a more confident stroke with a putter that you like, expensive or not. It is the confident stroke that makes you a better putter, more so than the brand or the type or shape of the club.
Joe
What do you think is the best type of putter to buy? Does the shape really matter? Why are the expensive ones any better than the cheap ones?
Preston
Hi Preston,
When you count all the strokes used for each of your clubs for any round, the putter by far is used the most times, so it makes sense to get a putter that you like. That does not mean it has to be an expensive putter. Consider this, even if you have a perfect putting stroke, you still will not make very many putts unless you read the green perfectly, and stroke the putt with the perfect line and the perfect speed, and who is that perfect? To make matters more complicated, even if you read the green correctly and make a perfect stroke, the putt may still hit an imperfection in the green and lip out. The answer to your question, in my opinion, is that there is a good chance you can putt just as well with a cheap putter as you can with an expensive putter, just find one that feels good and have a contest using that one against a borrowed goochy-fufu-expensive one and see which one wins the contest. The mind is a powerful thing, so you are more likely to make a more confident stroke with a putter that you like, expensive or not. It is the confident stroke that makes you a better putter, more so than the brand or the type or shape of the club.
Joe
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Two golfers happen to use the same brand ball, same number on it, and no other markings. They both hit their drives down the middle, the same distance, and they end up so close together that they could not tell which ball was theirs. What is the ruling?
A. Whenever you cannot identify your ball, the lost ball penalty applies. Go back to the tee and replay both shots.
B. It does not make any difference, you cannot prove either ball does not belong to either golfer.
C. Flip a coin to see which is which.
D. Have a swordfight with your drivers to determine who gets first choice.
A is officially correct, although I personally think it is stupid. Pros have forecaddies, so this can’t happen in tournaments. Recreational golfers do not have the luxury of forecaddies, so for recreational golf, B and C are both OK. For purists who take everything literally, D is only kidding.
Rule makers, use your head, the balls were not lost, they were clearly visible in the same spot. Anyone who says they are lost is a moron. If you can see the ball and play it, it is not lost. Proper skills were used to get the balls there. Furthermore, if you go back to the tee, you are going to delay the pace of play for all other golfers playing behind you. Golf should be a game of relative skills, not blockhead technicalities. Rules like this should be only for tournaments. Otherwise just flip a coin. If a coin flip is acceptable for football games, where there is a lot of money at stake, what is so wrong about doing the same in this situation where it really does not make any difference which ball is which?
A. Whenever you cannot identify your ball, the lost ball penalty applies. Go back to the tee and replay both shots.
B. It does not make any difference, you cannot prove either ball does not belong to either golfer.
C. Flip a coin to see which is which.
D. Have a swordfight with your drivers to determine who gets first choice.
A is officially correct, although I personally think it is stupid. Pros have forecaddies, so this can’t happen in tournaments. Recreational golfers do not have the luxury of forecaddies, so for recreational golf, B and C are both OK. For purists who take everything literally, D is only kidding.
Rule makers, use your head, the balls were not lost, they were clearly visible in the same spot. Anyone who says they are lost is a moron. If you can see the ball and play it, it is not lost. Proper skills were used to get the balls there. Furthermore, if you go back to the tee, you are going to delay the pace of play for all other golfers playing behind you. Golf should be a game of relative skills, not blockhead technicalities. Rules like this should be only for tournaments. Otherwise just flip a coin. If a coin flip is acceptable for football games, where there is a lot of money at stake, what is so wrong about doing the same in this situation where it really does not make any difference which ball is which?
Sunday, June 24, 2007
You Make The Call
You address the ball on the tee and accidentally knock it off the tee, and everyone watching thinks they are in a choir and they all sing in unison ONE. Then on the fairway you address the ball and when you ground your club the ball seems to move along with the soft grass but it does not move away from its original spot. Then on the green, you are about to address your putt and the wind moves the ball. Which one of these events is a penalty? (answer is below)
Joe,
At the recent Masters, they showed a replay of the telecast from 1960, during which Arnold Palmer left the pin in for a long putt, and his putt hit the pin. Why was that not a penalty?
Florence
Hello Florence,
By today’s rules that would have been a penalty, but at that time it was not a penalty for a putt to strike the pin. This is an example of how rules have changed over time despite those purists who say the rules are sacred (genuflect) and cannot be changed. I do not know why that rule was changed, I think they should have left it the same because it slows the game down when you have to wait for someone to walk up there and pull or tend the pin. I seriously doubt that there is any advantage gained by deliberately using the pin as a backstop because sometimes a putt might have fallen but the pin kept it out. There will always be debate about that, but I prefer rules that speed up the game. Then you have the jerks who would call a penalty on you if you tend the pin improperly. From a sportsmanship standpoint, I do not think the game needs that sort of nonsense.
Joe
Answer to You Make The Call (above)
No penalty for any of them. On the tee box you have not yet put the ball in play. On the fairway it is a penalty only if the ball moves away from its original spot, and on the green it is only a penalty if you have already grounded your club.
Jody, my Evil Twin, what do you think of these rulings?
Answer: Sometimes the rules do not allow for common sense. Common sense would dictate that if no advantage was gained by an accidental infraction, there would be no point in calling a penalty. And don’t feed me that line that says a rule is a rule, that is a brainless explanation. Let the scores be determined by shotmaking, not by bookworm technicalities.
You address the ball on the tee and accidentally knock it off the tee, and everyone watching thinks they are in a choir and they all sing in unison ONE. Then on the fairway you address the ball and when you ground your club the ball seems to move along with the soft grass but it does not move away from its original spot. Then on the green, you are about to address your putt and the wind moves the ball. Which one of these events is a penalty? (answer is below)
Joe,
At the recent Masters, they showed a replay of the telecast from 1960, during which Arnold Palmer left the pin in for a long putt, and his putt hit the pin. Why was that not a penalty?
Florence
Hello Florence,
By today’s rules that would have been a penalty, but at that time it was not a penalty for a putt to strike the pin. This is an example of how rules have changed over time despite those purists who say the rules are sacred (genuflect) and cannot be changed. I do not know why that rule was changed, I think they should have left it the same because it slows the game down when you have to wait for someone to walk up there and pull or tend the pin. I seriously doubt that there is any advantage gained by deliberately using the pin as a backstop because sometimes a putt might have fallen but the pin kept it out. There will always be debate about that, but I prefer rules that speed up the game. Then you have the jerks who would call a penalty on you if you tend the pin improperly. From a sportsmanship standpoint, I do not think the game needs that sort of nonsense.
Joe
Answer to You Make The Call (above)
No penalty for any of them. On the tee box you have not yet put the ball in play. On the fairway it is a penalty only if the ball moves away from its original spot, and on the green it is only a penalty if you have already grounded your club.
Jody, my Evil Twin, what do you think of these rulings?
Answer: Sometimes the rules do not allow for common sense. Common sense would dictate that if no advantage was gained by an accidental infraction, there would be no point in calling a penalty. And don’t feed me that line that says a rule is a rule, that is a brainless explanation. Let the scores be determined by shotmaking, not by bookworm technicalities.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Joe,
The TV announcer said he would not recommend the way Zach Johnson putts. Do you agree?
Johnny
Hello Johnny,
Putting styles are very individualistic things. If a conventional style is not working for you, what choice do you have but to try something unconventional? When Chris DiMarco started using the claw grip, people did not recommend that either, but when he started sinking putts from all over the place, more people started using variations of it. Bernhard Langer changes styles all the time, and so do many other pros. Zach tilts the shaft backwards and it works for him because he can keep the face square to the hole that way. This is the main point. Whatever style keeps the face square has to be OK for you.
Joe
The TV announcer said he would not recommend the way Zach Johnson putts. Do you agree?
Johnny
Hello Johnny,
Putting styles are very individualistic things. If a conventional style is not working for you, what choice do you have but to try something unconventional? When Chris DiMarco started using the claw grip, people did not recommend that either, but when he started sinking putts from all over the place, more people started using variations of it. Bernhard Langer changes styles all the time, and so do many other pros. Zach tilts the shaft backwards and it works for him because he can keep the face square to the hole that way. This is the main point. Whatever style keeps the face square has to be OK for you.
Joe
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Joe,
I find it hard to keep my left arm straight while I swing. I am right handed. Is it bad to bend it a little bit so I can take a longer backswing?
Alex
Hello Alex,
A bigger shoulder turn should help. Keeping the left arm straight accomplishes two good things. It assures the widest possible arc, and the wider the arc, the higher the clubhead speed. It also assures a more consistent arc, for example, if you allow the left elbow to bend, you have to be consistent in how much it bends or else the arc will be inconsistent, and therefore your ball striking will be inconsistent. In your case, as well as many other people, your body build will not let you keep it perfectly straight without restricting your backswing, so just keep it comfortably straight and you should be OK with a slight bend.
Joe
I find it hard to keep my left arm straight while I swing. I am right handed. Is it bad to bend it a little bit so I can take a longer backswing?
Alex
Hello Alex,
A bigger shoulder turn should help. Keeping the left arm straight accomplishes two good things. It assures the widest possible arc, and the wider the arc, the higher the clubhead speed. It also assures a more consistent arc, for example, if you allow the left elbow to bend, you have to be consistent in how much it bends or else the arc will be inconsistent, and therefore your ball striking will be inconsistent. In your case, as well as many other people, your body build will not let you keep it perfectly straight without restricting your backswing, so just keep it comfortably straight and you should be OK with a slight bend.
Joe
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Joe,
Help me settle confusion on keeping the head still. I thought it was a good thing but I read about Harvey Penick saying anyone who keeps the head still cannot play.
Hank
Hello Hank,
Harvey was referring to keeping the head absolutely still, which would restrict your motion. Steady is a better word because it is OK for the head to rotate a little bit. Some instructors say the head must move a little bit sideways if you have a proper weight shift. It is true that you can get more power by allowing the head to move sideways during the backswing, but that is only for people who have no problems with good ball contact. If you find yourself hitting shots fat or thin or wild, then I would recommend keeping the head more steady and avoid the sideways movement. Jack Nicklaus’ instructor used to grab the back of his hair to prevent too much head movement, and Jack was still one of the longest drivers of his era, so I am not sold on the idea that sideways head movement helps. I think Jack can play, don’t you?
Joe
Help me settle confusion on keeping the head still. I thought it was a good thing but I read about Harvey Penick saying anyone who keeps the head still cannot play.
Hank
Hello Hank,
Harvey was referring to keeping the head absolutely still, which would restrict your motion. Steady is a better word because it is OK for the head to rotate a little bit. Some instructors say the head must move a little bit sideways if you have a proper weight shift. It is true that you can get more power by allowing the head to move sideways during the backswing, but that is only for people who have no problems with good ball contact. If you find yourself hitting shots fat or thin or wild, then I would recommend keeping the head more steady and avoid the sideways movement. Jack Nicklaus’ instructor used to grab the back of his hair to prevent too much head movement, and Jack was still one of the longest drivers of his era, so I am not sold on the idea that sideways head movement helps. I think Jack can play, don’t you?
Joe
