Leaderboard

Final report is on the way. Here is a short summation. I am an older player with a slower swing and ball speed; so when we did our video, Bridgestone recommended I play their e12. I already play that as my gamer. So the best option for me to test was the RX. I cannot really express my surprise and even shock at how much this particular ball has helped my game: cleaner straighter drives, more consistency with my group of irons and my hybrids, and, finally, the spin needed on chips and pitches. No, all my mediocre skills were not miraculously improved. I may change to this ball. I have loved Bridgestone spheres since I returned to golf after a 2 decade period. The confidence I have come to expect with their balls was re-confirmed. Heck, I even tried to mash one ball using non-golf methods with no luck. One ball I played for over 34 holes (would have finished the round with it until I sent it swimming). Considering I have 2 boxes of e12 and a few sleeves of e6 in the trunk of the car, it will be a few months before this retired person needs to resupply. When that time comes, I will be sure to get some RX. They will not make me senior tour ready, but this month, I have found good results and good fun in the Tour RX.

I missed the entire fantasy football draft. Ended up with 5 QBs on the bench. One starting RB out for the season and my second starting RB was a backup. That being said I finished a hair under .500 for the season but was in the playoff hunt all year. Towards the end my team was pretty good. Point is a lot can change and in this format hang in there.

WELL, I found out that I have been doing something right!! Saw this on TV today.

This belongs in the Happy Thread:

Well everyone. I had a change of heart. Just sent in my paperwork for 6 more years serving our wonderful country. They will get me to 19... extend for 1 and retire or keep going to 30... we’ll see when we get there.

This is one of many videos coming, when I finish my final review, but see if you can tell the difference in sound that the ball makes upon contact with the putter face. I hit a Titleist ProV1 first, then the Bridgestone B RXS, then a Srixon Z Star, and then a Titleist AVX. My apologies for the limited audio quality, as it's just the iphone speaker on the other end of the putting green on a tripod. I will probably do the test outdoors on a real putting green, and place the camera behind me for better audio quality, and try the same test that way outdoors.

I think you are potentially correct. The wider sole helps mitigate your problem. The wide sole may have a negative effect for someone else. That is why generally we recommend fitting even for poor golfers since the clubs can help compensate for what you are doing in your swing. I think a better statement is that properly fitted clubs can help a golfer play mediocre golfer with a flawed swing. That said every golfer has a flawed swing.

Pretty quick. Maybe a 2 day build. Then 4-5 days shipping. So definitely less than 2 weeks. Then sent out for the shaft install. Here's a couple more pics taken outside today ....just because

There must be something to this practice thing I hear all about. Not bad for February. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

... Tough topic. EVERYONE that plays golf has swing flaws. The idea behind equipment is to find what works best with your swing flaws and what works best with your swing strengths. There is just so much that goes into every swing and it is different for everyone. Picker or deep divots or somewhere in-between? Low, mid or high spin? Low, mid or high trajectory? Misses low or high and more heel or toe on the face? High, mid or low swing speed? Draw, straight or fade as well as hook or slice? ... Obviously there are so many combinations of the above and figuring that out can be very difficult without professional help. There are clubs designed to help mask the above flaws as well as take advantage of strengths. Nothing wrong with a slightly over the top swing, picking the ball off the ground and playing a fade IF you can be consistent doing so. Some may want to improve and some may want to keep doing what works for them. Equipment should always compliment your swing, not the other way around.

Congratulations!! 20 is good number, more you never know.[emoji16] Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

In my opinion, there will always be long hitters and shorter hitters, and distance off the tee will always be a substantial advantage. That won't change if distance is decreased, length will remain as an advantage. What a distance reduction COULD do is to bring most hazards back into play for most of the players. As it is, the Zacks and Jims have to navigate around bunkers, while the Dustins and Rorys just hit the ball over the bunkers. I agree with another thing you said, this is all opinion-based. We can all have opinions as to what the proper balance of required skills is. The USGA report says that the distance increases in elite golf have swung the balance too far towards length, so that some of the other skills matter less. Its their opinion that the trend is undesirable, is harmful to golf for a number of reasons. We can disagree, many of us might enjoy long hitters and not care that accuracy has diminished importance, I can respect that side of the discussion, even if I don't agree. I agree with the USGA/R&A on one thing, that the only aspect contributing to the distance increases that they have the potential to regulate is the equipment. Its impossible to regulate training, strength, coaching, techniques. Its impossible to regulate how a golf course prepares the grounds for an elite competition. The only thing left is equipment regulation. Personally, I'd hate to see bifurcation of equipment rules. I have a hard time thinking that the PGA Tour would accept a "local rule" that requires them to play different equipment from the stuff their sponsors are trying to sell to the general public. I see a lot of issues with transitioning from "normal" equipment growing up to "reduced distance" equipment at some point, is it college, or elite junior events, is it only the Pro Tours? I believe that one set of rules for all golfers is the best way to go. I'd prefer that distance not be reduced for everyone. As many have said, distance is really only an issue at the very top levels, most of us need all we can get. But really, if we all lose a few yards due to equipment regulation, we're not going to quit golf. Of course a few people would, and many more would be screaming bloody murder for years, but we'd adjust. My preference would be to freeze distance where it is now. I'd also support new regulations and testing, perhaps a maximum distance for fully assembled clubs, under a variety of swing speed and angle of attack scenarios.

Yeah, you're right on both accounts. It's really long, and I don't have a definite conclusion on the distance debate itself. My main point was to just remind everyone involved that we're trying to figure out the best rules for a game. That means there's no definitive right and wrong here. I think that reminder applies more to the rollback/bifurcation side of the debate, who sometimes frame their arguments hyperbolically: that the modern game is a travesty, etc. I don't want to discount the real logistics issues: length increases maintenance, etc. But what we're arguing about, chiefly, is our taste in the kind of golf we want to watch. Maybe we could frame it this way: laying aside personality and just focusing on style of play, would you rather watch A Zach Johnson or Jim Furyk plot their way around the course, laying up on par 5s to get birdies with stellar wedge play, or A Rory McIlory or Jon Rahm hit mammoth drives and laser approach shots, or A Bubba Watson or Phil Mickelson, hitting huge drives and hitting heroic recovery shots with imagination? To be sure, it is good for the Tour if there's room for all of these guys. Variety is part of what makes the game interesting. But it's likely that one kind of player will be predominate. Which archetype should the Tour seek to have as the most common player? Honestly, I'd rather watch the Bubba/Phil guys. In my judgment, they are the most entertaining and provide the most "Did you see that?!" moments per round. But it's impossible to make those guys the majority, not only because (I suspect) that style of play isn't something you can really teach, but because it just isn't the most prudent style of play for most guys if they want to have a sustainable Tour career. Watching a ZJ or Furyk play is absolutely fascinating, but (for me) I can't imagine that having a Tour filled with those guys would be more fun to watch than a Tour filled with Rory/Rahm clones. The ZJ/Furyk types are interesting for two reasons: they're more relatable than the others, and they provide a contrast. So on balance, it seems to me that the Tour would be making itself less interesting, on balance, if it made changes to favor a Tour filled with ZJ/Furyk types. That's as close as I get to an answer

I’ll disagree that 10 yard gains can’t be seen in a year to year release of one does a proper fitting and considers multiple manufacturers. I’ve seen in it from the 917 to g400, there are seeing it with m3 and m5 to sim. I’ve heard people get it work Callaway releases within a back to back cycles. It will vary for everyone but to say it’s not possible is misleading

Plus 1 for what @hckymeyer said. I'd also let him know that he shouldn't expect to be able to score well straight away, golf is difficult to be good at. Stress that it should be fun, and that any good shot should be looked at as a win.

Shot a solid 43/41:84 today at Babe Zaharias GC today. No birdies and only two doubles. Sent from my iPad using MyGolfSpy

And not one bit. It has added a lot of enjoyment to the game for a lot of the guys at my club that benefit from that technology. This is great for me as it lets me get a game with a lot of guys that normally wouldn’t play in my foursome. Right now I am not at a point that the lighter weight helps me but getting closer to it every day. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Man... I forgot about Mr. Adam Scott. This dude is crazy. Old blades, and a spaceship putter. I’ll take AS or BW for the Dub.

This and my vodka martini are the perfect end to a brutally long two days, thanks! I watched the no putts given episode while doing a round of dishes - why I was doing the dishes when I’m the only one in the house who worked today is topic for another thread. I found it insightful and have two tournaments that I’ve been to multiple times that are instructive and contradictory to my earlier point about former being tougher - I don’t know that it’s true unless firmer leads to hazards and truly thick rough. So the first tournament is in my backyard - Valspar. Driving distances at that tournament are far shorter than others - often 30 yards shorter than mid season tournaments in the Midwest or Northeast. The reason is it’s wetter in my part of Florida and there are several holes that do t allow for drives over 300 yards because of water hazards. Winning scores at Valspar range from low to mid teens and guys rave about the course - it produces a variety of winners. The second was in my old backyard - Westchester - in its day this course was similar to Copperhead - one of the shortest on tour. When the tournament was played in August, firm conditions, rough dry and wispy - score were outrageously low. Then it moved to June - wet, snarly rough, fast firm greens - winning score was often single digits - guys loved to play there because it was great prep for the US Open just as Copperhead is for Augusta. Course conditions are the most logical answer to the long term problem. Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

At the price point they sell clubs and the volume they move I am sure they turn a nice profit. I think it is mandated at my club that once you turn 55 you have to play a full bag of XXIO clubs. Our pro sold 4 XXIO products for every one of all the other manufacturers the he carries combined. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Happy birthday to our very own @GolfSpy Dave! Have a great day!!

It’s been 30+ years since I last played BRCC, and my memory is still full of images of tight, oak-lined fairways. Well, I was in BR today, so I drove-by, and went to take a peek to see if my memory has served me correctly.... Sure enough, it has! I would say the majority of the courses I’ve played here in the State are very similarly set-up since the land is primarily “flat”, so the best defense are the huge oaks that populate our areas. Here are a couple of pics to show just how tight BRCC plays. The country club, and public course where I live are similarly set-up. It’s tough to pull driver with these views! Pic 1 is Hole 1, and the second is #9. Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

Congrats - I'm sure it was a thoughtful decision. Just think of that retirement pay after 30.

John here. I live in Seattle. I wish I could play more than I do, but if I can get out every other month I'm lucky...2 year old daughter keeps me busy. Most of the times I get to play are on trips we take...Hawaii, Bend, Carmel Valley, etc. I like to get out and play golf for the challenge. It is just me and the course. I am my own enemy most of the time. I like to hang out on the MGS site to see in depth testing and recommendations on equipment. I don't upgrade a lot, but when I do I like to be informed.

Here's the background article. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-7995063/Play-golf-avoid-early-grave-Players-sport-face-half-risk-premature-death.html?ITO=applenews

But again, this is completely beyond the ability of the USGA/R&A to regulate. I do think that a report like this might "encourage" the PGA Tour (and the other tours) to reconsider some of the course set-ups, maybe to work with the host course to find ways to reward accuracy (or penalize inaccuracy) more than they have in the past. I think there's enough money available at the top levels to help the courses make changes. The problems come when "everyman" courses feel pressure from the golfing public to do the same types of renovations. Everyday golfers don't need additional bunkers or heavier rough to be appropriately challenged, but we want to play the clubs the pros play, and many want to play courses just like the pros play.

Found out I have to stay on the line to find out more in September. Right now I play Srixon balls (Q Star Tour), but I'm looking at possibly adding Srixon irons. Granted, I'm just now entering year 2 of my career as a golfer, but Srixon irons just look beautiful and I hear all the time about how they are underrated in terms of performance.

I started my training on 1/15 and have followed the protocol suggestions. I had slipped down to a 100 mph driver ss over the last several years from approx 108. I'm going to follow the program for the entire season in hopes of getting past the plateau periods and hope for an increase by the end of the year back to the 108-110 range. It's too early to get frustrated but I do find it interesting that my ss with the lightest green stick is usually only 110-112 while I'm 108 with the red. the blue as expected is 100-102 at the moment. With my current driver, I'm now getting up to 105-107 although I don't thing I would swing that hard on course. Still, it's nice to see the increase over what I was capable of before I started the training. When I swing the green, the sound and feel seem noticeably faster yet I'm disappointed to see low numbers... I can't wait to see where I am after finishing level 2.

It’s a chicken and egg scenario with lessons and fittings. For me anyone looking to improve should invest in some form of coaching. Amateurs tend to focus on symptoms and fixes for them and end up putting band aids on them with some fix that will fall off at some point instead of looking at the cause. Having a coach fix the cause tends to solve multiple symptoms. The thing with lessons is one has to be willing to put in the work after lessons to see the improvement. Taking a lesson and not working on the things addressed from the lesson is just throwing money away. I think one can do a fitting to get clubs that help them be relatively consistent and then get lessons to improve swings. The chances that specs on clubs will drastically change with swing improvements are relatively low and the vast majority of clubs today can be bent several degrees flat or upright with no damage to the club as well as in loft.

I like watching them all and all type players you mention win on any given Sunday. It may (to some already has) become mundane watching the bomb & gouge show. My guess is that we'll see a hard cap placed on balls and equipment design. We'll also see some changes to course conditions that further penalizes long, offline drives. Someone mentioned adding deep pothole bunkers in those long, offline landing areas - ones that require a layup 90% of the time. Sand is eco-friendly and easy to maintain. Watching Cam disappear into a 10 foot deep crater, a puff of smoke emerge, and him reappearing will add some fun. Even with these changes, the player profile in the year 2060 may have physically evolved to the point that average swat speeds are regularly approaching 200 mph. The USGA may need to add a new section to their regulations - "swole limits" (love that term) .

Gotta say - I am duly impressed with how well you guys can feel and hear the ball coming off the putter. Other than range rocks I have a real hard time differentiating between various balls.

I really enjoy this time of year. As a golf club junkie, most wanted testing is just a blast. I am fortunate to live close enough to be a participant. While driver testing was fun, but now I am in the middle of testing my favorite club.... the putter. Seeing some interesting stuff with the blade putters and it is a great practice session. It is nice to have a 20+ foot indoor green to work on soeed control. Been rolling lots of 5’, 10’, and 20’ putts. Stoke is looking good.

Yes more forgiving clubs make golf easier because the penalty for a bad shot is at as bad as a less forgiving club that’s the purpose of forgiving clubs. Swinging harder in golf is a bad move. I doubt you will find an instructor anywhere that says swing harder. Swing faster yes, harder no.

Tell me ! Went to the lake today, then came home and ordered $70 of shaky heads and Ned rig heads...it’s a disease...

I just got back. We did the driving range first and got his 7i from 90 yards out to 130. His 3h from 110 to 150. Then I think I overloaded him with swing thoughts, and he started breaking down. I switched over to a course, stopped giving instruction, and told him to just try to think about the target. He did pretty well. Exception given his experience. We're planning on one more practice session before we actually play in real life. I'm thinking he'll do fine. Day of, I'll emphasize just enjoying it out there and not worrying about performance. I'm looking forward to it.

WWaldo, You’re right! There is never too much Buffalo Trace. Sent from my iPad using MyGolfSpy Cobra F8(10.5*) w/Mitsubishi Tensei CK Blue Regular; 3-4W(14.5*) & 5-6W(17.0*)w/Mitsubishi Tensei CK Blue Regular; Tour Edge CBX119 22* Hybrid; Ben Hogan PTx 5-PW w/Recoil 460 graphite shafts; Ben Hogan TKt Gw(49*) SW(53*) LW(57*) all w/UST Mamiya Recoil 460 ES regular shafts. Lamkin grips with Arccoss tracking sensors. Putter: Evnroll ER-6 33”. Bag: Cobra Ultralite Cart Bag(Peacoat/Silver).

More Yuck[emoji12][emoji12] Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

Well over a decade until I hit the XXIO demographic. I did go lighter in the shafts for my driver and 3 wood for the new bag. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I take it you still have a few years left with the PXGs before having to make the switch?

I'll pick another lefty - Mr. Phil, hopefully he has some revenge golf after last Sunday's fold. Sent from my iPad using MyGolfSpy

Ask questions, we are here to help answer them.

Hopefully I didn't come across as a jerk with my statement. It is more obvious in football when somebody is injured and still in a starting lineup. Golf is definitely a bit harder compared to football. The biggest thing to remember in a league this big with this type of format is you are never out of it. The top 30 make the playoffs after a LONG season. Plus every week has 59 wins possible so 1 or 2 hot weeks and last place can become 1st place and vice versa. Sent from my Moto Z3 Play using MyGolfSpy mobile app

Ordered a jacket from Ping....arrived today but too small, gotta send it back. It was $120 on sale for $50..... Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

This is very long for a forum post; it’s really more a golf blog post, but I don’t have a golf blog. Also, I’m not writing any of this with the delusions that people will want to read it, but mostly to bring some order to my own thinking about the distance debate, because I see good arguments on both sides. Perhaps it will also help others. Let’s start with a question: which iconic par 3 is closer to your image of an ideal tournament golf hole? #12 at the Masters, or #16 at the Phoenix Open I suspect most of us are happy to say that there is a place for both holes (including their very different atmospheres) in the course of season. But my question is, which one is a better model for golf to pursue to best secure its own future? Augusta’s Twelfth and Scottsdale’s Sixteenth offer profoundly contrasting visions about what golf should be and what about it should be appealing. One is set up so that virtually no one is present around the hole in a setting so reverent it’s called Amen Corner. The other stacks people on top of each other in a stadium that is not noted for its reverence. One hole inspires day-by-day analysis of the strategy demanded by each hole location on the green; its Sunday pin is legendary. For the other, whatever strategic elements objectively exist in the hole are practically washed away by gallons of overpriced beer. While there are some who love both holes, there’s a lot of non-overlapping area in that Venn diagram. To (over-)simplify, advocates of the Twelfth contend that golf’s proper direction is to emphasize tradition, decorum, subtlety, and nuance. Those in this camp would have to concede that their vision of the game might appeal to fewer people, but would counter that those fewer people would likely have a deeper devotion to golf. Advocates of the Sixteenth’s version of golf suggest that it might not be the shrewdest idea for the game to market itself as a form of masochism. They contend that it could be, you know, fun. People might listen to music while playing. The ground on which golf is played doesn’t have to be so stinkin’ hallowed. It doesn’t seem that a comparison that two roughly 150-yard par 3s would have anything to do with the distance debate, but I content that it does. At its course, the distance debate isn’t merely about distance. The contention that there is a “proper” distance for people to hit their drives is very much of the spirit of Augusta. The contrary position, that it’s fun to watch Cam Champ obliterate golf balls, feels much more in tune with Phoenix. I’m going to pursue a couple of rabbit trails here, but my main point is this: the distance debate comes down to a matter of taste and preference. To be sure, the reality of increased distance is objectively there, and it creates real-world problems. And while I honestly don’t know what the answer is, the collective temperature of the discussion could drop a few degrees by remembering that we’re trying to figure out how to play a game for amusement. Remembering that golf is a game, though obvious, helps this discussion, because the rules and regulations of sports are of necessity arbitrary. Sports are unnecessary. That is their nature. They may play a practical function in society, equipping citizens with physical, social, and emotional skills that can prepare them for more necessary tasks. But sport is sport because it in itself is not a task that needs to be accomplished. If you run 26.2 miles to deliver a needed message in a battle, that is not sport. If you run 26.2 miles for its own sake, that’s sport. In battle, you have to run 26.2 miles because that’s where the guy is to whom the message must be delivered. In sport, you run 26.2 miles…for any possible number of reasons. Because it is the nature of sport to be unnecessary, the rules of sports have no moral or logical necessity to them. The rationale for the rules of sports are rooted in various concerns: Convenience: we can race to that tree. Why that distance? Because the tree standing there provides an easy finish line. Any number of rules in various sports have these kinds of origins and golf is no exception. Why 18 holes? Why a cup 4.25” in diameter? In many cases, the answer is that it was convenient for those who originated the game, and therefore become the accepted standard everywhere. Competition: every sport has to determine what it is testing and this is arbitrary. An open “who can cover this distance the fastest?” contest needs further parameters to make competition meaningful. Does it make sense to have people races when we have auto races, and the cars go way faster? It does, only because we make arbitrary distinctions. Track is wrestling right now with shoe technology, but why permit shoes at all? Our answer to this question is not going to be one with mathematical certainty. Golf is fundamentally a question of getting a ball in a hole in as few strokes as possible. Do we want to be more specific about the ways in which a person must go about doing that? Fun: because sport is unnecessary, and especially in a society like ours in which we have more freedom for leisure than nearly any that preceded us, we choose rules for a sport to make it more enjoyable. We start with the obvious extremes: basketball with rims at 50’ would make for a frustrating game. It might be interesting (for a time) to see if anyone could make a basket at that height, but the game of basketball would likely be literally pointless with that goal, making it more frustrating than fun to play. Challenge: perhaps in tension with fun, we place some rules in place to make our sport more difficult. And at the extremes, there are sports where the grueling challenge is the point: think various endurance sports, like hypermarathon running. Typically, the more a sports rules tilt toward challenge and away from fun, the smaller the number of people that will be drawn to the sport. Entertainment: I distinguish this from fun as I have in view here the perspective of the spectator rather than the participants. For sports without spectators, this doesn’t matter. But for sports that seek to generate revenue, this is an enormous consideration. I think we can safely presume that this is in large measure why baseball ignored its obvious steroid issue in the late 1990s. Continuity: and we can break this down into two (sometimes very different) aspects. There is continuity of the challenge and continuity of the results. A sport like track emphasizes the continuity of the challenge. It would strike most people as absurd if, as records fall at various distances, the governing bodies of track stretch the 100m sprint to 110m to keep the times consistent with the past. But golf, with its center of gravity in relation to par, seems to prefer continuity of results. If Rory McIlroy would play an unadjusted Augusta at a number absurdly under par, doesn’t that simply mean that he’s better at golf (getting the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes) than previous generations? The distance debate exists in the tension created by these various goals of a sport. My point is simply to encourage everyone to recognize that. I suspect that even if equipment advances were absolutely locked down right now, we’re still likely to see driving distance averages moving from 296 yards (where it is right now) to north of 320 yards in the next decades. If this were to happen, it means that the most elite golfers have gotten better at golf. And yes, they will be able to blow the doors off courses, shooting numbers that are absurdly under par, because they are better at golf than the golfers of the past. If the object of the game is to get the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes possible, hitting the ball as close as possible to the hole on every shot maximizes your ability to do that. If we don’t like what the combination of athletic ability, equipment, optimized launch, and perfect agronomy do to our enjoyment of watching the game (and the distance problem is exclusively a problem at the most elite level), there’s a case to be made for changing it. But the case is one based on taste, one aimed at creating a product that is enjoyable to watch so that it is profitable, and in that way sustainable.

Golf clubs don’t fix people’s swings. Lessons do. Golf clubs with wide soles will help make your misses end up in a better spot. That doesn’t hold anyone back. Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

No sympathy from me. I spent lots of time pre-planning my draft order/picks, participated in the draft, spent more time filling out the roster. One of my players won the WM and recorded an ace. This past weekend I had 3 or my 4 make the cut. All this effort and we're only 5 positions apart . I'm went back and revised my winning formula, adding ratios and where to focus my efforts... which tells me the outcome is largely beyond my control. 0.10 [plays lots of events] + 0.10 [makes lots of cuts] + 0.10 [often among the top 20 finishers] + 0.70 [boat load of luck] = MGS Golden Ticket

This is a tough one, I'm also not a teacher and don't feel qualified to give advice. Both my boys are starting golf and my wife plays a round or two each season. I'll give them basic advice on thing like setup and aiming, proper grip, and plenty on course etiquette and how to play the game. I'd start with this though, ask the guy what his goals are for now? Once bitten with the golf bug it's a hard thing to get rid of. He might end up wanting clubs, wanting to get better, wanting lessons etc... But just starting out I'd probably feel comfortable giving advice on some bigger things with the swing and setup. Maybe just say try this and see what happens. Give him the caveat that you don't feel qualified to be a teacher but here are a couple things to try out and see if they work better.

Tell him he needs to marry your sister before he goes on vacation with you to play golf. But yeah, it's ok to offer him some tips. Just keep it reasonable, and focus on one or two things. Anything more than that and it will overwhelm your student.

Me thinks someone has been sipping a little too much Buffalo Trace while shopping on the internet. LOL

When testing on an unknown launch monitor always compare your current driver to the ones you are testing.