YamYam

The point is the longer putters were originally meant for the players who had developed yips and become less able to practice for long periods. I have had yips, but overcome them. Yup, they return when your least expecting them, much like a shank, but I also enjoyed long practice sessions. These weren't possible with my glass back, and the broom handle helped a great deal. Taking it on the course was another matter. I could never find any data to support that long putters, particularly broom handles, were any more successful than your conventional 34". But the powers above had made their minds up. Ban anchoring and effectively ban the putter. I'd go out with a broom handle but everyone was scrutinising me, claiming I was anchoring. The ruling bodies were making the likes of me an (innocent), pariah. If it weren't for the bloody belly putters the problem would never arisen.

I've got two broomhandles. A Ping B90 and a Scotty Cameron Studio, (the one with the four coloured dots) I loved them when I could play with them but now because of the anchoring ban, I only take them out in social games. I got sick of people accusing me of breaking the ridiculous rules regarding anchoring, which I was innocent of as I'd learnt how to play without anchoring. But there is a strong element still of ignorance. It would have been far better if they had not changed the rules, which effectively made the putters obsolete. I don't think they ever proved that broomhandles or bell putters were any better than conventional putters. The statistics certainly didn't stand up. They were a saviour for me at the time. I had a bad back and if it weren't for the style of the putting stroke needed I would have had to have curtailed the length of my practice sessions. The rules still allow disabled players to use them, but if you are an ageing less abled, but otherwise fit, its one rule for one and one rule for another. When I spoke to a guy who is/was a member of the R&A Rules Committee about older less abled golfers and the fact that the effective ban would push these long standing players into the long grass, his exact response was "f**k 'em, we can do without them!". I think most people would agree that is an appalling attitude.

For me the question isn't how long I am prepared to keep wearing a pair of golf shoes, but more a case of how long they will last in storage. I have long been a devotee of FootJoy DryJoys, like many of you guys. They used to be of the highest quality and were worth spending the extra. I had to quit golf for a few years because of health problems. Up until then I had stockpiled a few pairs bought in pro shop sales fully intending to wear them when my current pair(s) gave in, which of course because they are so high quality didn't happen very often. Those old pairs were so good compared to the ones I had stockpiled. The "new" shoes when retrieved from the dark cupboard were worn once and then had to be thrown away. The soles had totally disintegrated. FootJoy didn't want to know, which is a reflection on their worsening customer service. They didn't even answer my emails. I've still got a few pairs of FJs but now I wear them in rotation. It means several pairs being stored in my locker or car and decision on the day as to whether, depending on the weather and which trousers I'm wearing, if I wear black, white or saddles. The compounds they use in the manufacture of FJs are by definition of poor quality. If I could find good alternatives I would. I have included photos of one of the pairs. I have several other pairs, (or rather had as they were binned), which display similar deterioration. When I bought these, I wasn't aware there was a "use by date". I understand that there are others who have experienced the same problems, so it's not just me.

Trying to hit a fade out of semi-rough when you need to and you can't get the clubhead to the ball.

For me my first set of blades - Wilson FG49 - 1 iron through to a Sand Wedge. Driver - Titleist 975D 8.5° Grafalloy Stiff. Get this - this driver was available for purchase from 1998 to 2001! You look at a every driver produced since by Titleist or any other company and you will not see anywhere near that longevity. Woods - Titleist in the same range/generation. Wedges - Cleveland RTG rustys - 56° (bent to 55°) and 60°. I later replaced my Wilson PW and SW with Clevelands because I wore them out. Putter - Ping Anser.

Absolutely no music! What the hell is he thinking of? Certainly not his playing partners, or the rest of the field.

I have acquired a second-hand Odyssey Putter. It is described as a Stroke Balanced Toe Up 1. It's a blade type putter. The grip is original and is a SuperStroke 1.0 Flatso. Has anyone else got one of these? The reason I ask is that it doesn't look right. When you hold it address it "feels" as though something is bent because it looks and feels closed. I've checked the orientation of the grip with the face and its OK. I get the impression it's something going on with the hosel, but there are no visual signs of marking where it may have been adjusted or damaged, so I'm wondering if this an inherent design thing. The guy who gave it me has had it from new and assures me he has never abused it. He reckons it has felt "bent" since the day he had it and the reason he gave it me is because he has given up with it. Other than that, it is in very good condition. I have several odyssey putters but this is the first blade type I have had. All the rest are mallets. Anybody got any information?

Most OEM grips are derivates from Golf Pride any way. So when replacing it's fairly simple unless you have say a Scotty Cameron putter and want to maintain the kudos and value by paying a hell of a lot more for named grip. If I buy a club, whether it be new or second hand, if the grip is in good condition, I'll leave it on until it needs replacing at which point I'll fit GP Tour Velvet. They are easy to fit, the most easily available, wear well, providing you clean them regularly with non-oil based cleaner, and they are reasonably priced. However, if the fitted grip is anything other than standard grip thickness, I'll change it.

I know exactly what you mean. This is the manufacturers continually looking for ways to force you to buy new clubs. A must read are the books by Tom Wishon, (The search For The Perfect Golf Club). Tom highlights the problem of the "disappearing loft disease". It is a problem occurring at both ends of the range. The 1. 2 and 3 iron are being forced out of bags and becoming obsolete because the loft on iron sets is reducing so drastically. Some bags now only carry up to a 5 iron with the 4 iron being tossed out too. The lofts on the longer irons would have to be reduced by the same proportion which makes them even harder to hit. The 1 iron almost reaches a negative loft situation. The replacements for the long irons are hybrids and utility irons which are designed to get the ball up quicker, but they aren't as controllable as the old irons. A 1 or 2 iron is far better into a breeze than any hybrid "equivalent". I feel it has taken a lot of skill out of the game. I have almost forgotten how to hit a 3 iron and yet 10-15 years ago before all this lot really got going, I could hit 1 and 2 irons. You don't see many YouTube videos instructing on long iron hitting these days. Of course the delofting of the mid irons also has an effect on the short irons. Where a wedge originally had 50° and all you needed was a 56° sand iron, (and possibly a 60° lob), you are now faced with a 9 iron playing nearer to a 7 or 8 forcing you to rethink the pitching wedges, some of which are now coming in at a ridiculous 43°, (Titleist being one of them). In turn this forces you to rethink all of the wedges and the gaps between them, but don't worry (ha ha!), the manufacturers have created the gapping for you. All you have to do is buy them at around £160 a throw! At the end of it all, you have to make up your mind whether you need to compensate at the long end of the set, or if you rely heavily on your short game, the short end. But you are still governed by the Rules of Golf where you are only allowed to carry 14 clubs, when actually the manufacturers need you to carry several more to enable you to play the game. In answer to your question, my club setter as always maintained that 1° equates to 3 yards of carry either way. You may need to confirm that. I'd be interested in what you find out, but if you get a chance, read those books.

Never use washing up liquid for your grips. It's oil based. I use a product used in auto/mechanical workshops called Swarfega. It's actually water based. The implications of using oil based products on rubber compounds should be fairly obvious. When washing grips use a nail brush, neat Swarfega and rinse under a running tap, (fawcett). And don't forget to hold your finger over the hole in the end. Just dry off with a tea towel and leave to air dry fully. They'll feel like brand new.

Yup, got two. A Ping B90 and a Scotty Cameron Studio. Going on for 500 quid's worth that has now been rendered virtually useless and unsellable. I tend not to use them now because of the stupid ridiculous anchoring ban. I tended not to anchor but the trouble is it's so open to misinterpretation. Your playing partners and others in the field will claim that you are anchoring, (when you know you are not). It ends up in an argument your game is affected and upset. So not worth the hassle. I considered the ban unnecessary. Another stupid ruling by the R&A and USGA. The statistics and results did not show the long putters to be any more effective than conventional putters. I had the problem explained to me by a member of the R&A. The American universities and colleges were encouraging players from an early part of their careers to use the belly putter. The coaches were actually encouraging the use and teaching them how to use them. There were more and more players from developing countries in Asia opting to go straight to the long putter before they had even tried to use a conventional type. It was deemed untraditional. So by introducing the anchoring ban the long putter was effectively banned in the process, which was the objective, because if they had gone for a direct ban, the manufacturers would have no doubt taken it to litigation. The long putter, whether belly or broomhandle, was developed for those golfers of a certain age or who had developed serious age related yips. It was OK as far as most people were concerned. It enabled some good golfers to prolong their careers and enjoyment of the game. But then along came the ruling body spoilers. I started using one because of a bad back. I couldn't spend the amount of time practicing that I wanted without coming away and needing a serious massage and pain killers. So the upright uncrouched stance suited me. I didn't putt any better or worse. My argument against a ban at the time was that pretty soon golf was being reintroduced at the Olympics and as such would be also be included in the highly televised Paralympics. Separate rules would have to be introduced for golfers with disabilities - how were they going to govern and police that? A separate rule book was published in the end by the R&A which has now been incorporated into the main rule book. But they still can't police it properly. Just because other players who lack sympathy and understanding think that long putters should go, doesn't mean to say they are wrong. I don't see the argument. If you don't like them, don't use them - simple. But leave those who are less able to enjoy the game as best they can. They should have left well alone, like many other things that have been needlessly changed. Nothing was really broken, so why attempt fixing it?

Don't really see the point of "driving" around a golf course. It takes away the exercise aspect. I always used to carry but on advise I started using a trolley. I said that if I ever got to the point where I had to use an electric trolley I'd call it a day, but here I am still here, but at least I'm still walking and not sitting in a buggy. I observe the people at our club who insist on buggies and in the main they are obese and well over weight and extremely unfit. I have sympathy with those who's failing limbs can't carry them anymore, whatever stage in their aging process, but to see young fit fellahs in buggies who could otherwise be walking the walk and actually feeling the course beneath their feet and smelling the grass and trees and not being overpowered by petrol fumes, I cringe. I actually love walking - I see and notice more. You take an aerial view of some courses now and they are tailored for buggies. Long winding tracks scarring an otherwise beautiful landscape. Sometimes the walker or the trolley user is forced along these routes and depending on the construction they can if made up of sharp gravel, rip golf shoes and trolley tyres to ribbons. I have had to have two new sets of wheels on my Powakaddy because of sharp granite or slate gravel chippings and it ain't cheap to replace them. If Ben Hogan could walk what was basically 14 miles around Oakland Hills in 1951, (36 holes on Saturday), on legs that had suffered the trauma he had in his auto crash, then I'm damned sure I can do 18 holes on my healthy pins.

Just bought 910H 27° off eBay. It's in mint condition, but it has got a Diamana Bassara 60 shaft in it. A bit to flexible and flighty even for me. I have also picked up a 2nd hand Diamana Kai'li 80 shaft that is just a half inch longer, which shouldn't affect things too much as long as I get the swing weight about right. I haven't seen a 7 wood since the days of the Callaway Warbirds, (the Heaven Wood). I would have thought the equivalent hybrid would have given the same, maybe better?

The best by far of all the free analysis apps was "Coach's Eye". It came free with very few ads on Android and Apple. You could pay a small amount to upgrade which gave you a few tools, such as the ability to draw lines to identify swing planes. The main plus was that it produced slow motion video from imported footage from your phone. And it was ultra-slow which could be stopped or reversed. Unfortunately, the developers, for some strange reason, decided to abandon it and stopped updating it. I wish that they would take it up again, because it was far superior and cheaper than many of the other video analysis apps that are still around, including V1.