Jump to content
Testers Wanted: RUNNER Golf and Byrdie Golf Design ×

Gusset

Member
  • Posts

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Gusset

  • Birthday October 15

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    SW Washington (state)

Player Profile

  • Handicap
    14
  • Fitted for Clubs
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Gusset's Achievements

  1. Interesting video, potentially useful for judging one's ball striking. Unfortunately, it could also be just a bit misleading. He mentioned at the outset that loft is going to play a role...the 1.9 factor is applicable to the 7-iron he was hitting, but I believe he also stated that someone hitting a stronger lofted 7-iron wouldn't see the same relationship. Seems pretty obvious. So what was the loft on his 7-iron? I watched to the end, and I don't recall him saying anything attaching a loft number to either his club or what's out there. I currently play 90s vintage clubs (TA-845Ti), and I suspect my 7-iron's 36* loft probably would not match up with the 1.9 factor. My R10 numbers with a 6-iron (32*) seem to meet the 1.9 relationship on a good strike, and I've seen loft numbers for some modern 7-irons that are even stronger than my 6. Any guesses as to what he was hitting?
  2. Per one of Garmin's tech support articles, the radar needs enough flight distance to permit two full revolutions of the ball in order to get a measurement. Judging by the chart they provide, 8 feet doesn't look like enough to get an actual measurement at your ball speed unless you're spinning it pretty high, so it's likely estimated. https://support.garmin.com/en-US/?faq=COFCXdRAJv2m8r9MBtLrf8 (on this link, click on "Determining Distance From Tee to Net" for the chart) The shot data should tell you whether the spin number is measured or estimated.
  3. You might consider the Fiberbuilt Flight Deck style of mat. Several weeks ago, I put up a YT video summary of my thoughts after having one for 2.5 years, for what it's worth. I've got the mat-only version that I built a platform to use with, but they sell it coupled with a nice standing mat as well. As with other options in this thread, it's very joint friendly, among other qualities. https://www.amazon.com/Fiberbuilt-Golf-Practice-Station-Training/dp/B07DQJRJWB/ref=sr_1_4_sspa?crid=VYA9BAHREUBI&keywords=fiberbuilt+golf+mat&qid=1699990436&sprefix=fiberbuilt+%2Caps%2C186&sr=8-4-spons&sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9hdGY&psc=1 Whatever you decide to go with, good luck!
  4. I'd love to have room for a 15-20' mat, but my experience suggests there are still benefits to be had with something shorter. I've been using a smallish mat, max putt distance ~7.5', most of this season. It's one of those kidney bean shaped surfaces with three holes, so you can come at things from different angles. I walk past it multiple times/day, and I often stop for a minute or two and hit a few putts. My main goals have been to 1) build a consistent smooth stroke with quiet wrists and a good follow through, 2) get so I can better hit my intended line, and 3) mix in some non-block practice benefits with the sporadic mini-sessions. It definitely has paid off. I'm missing a lot less from 5 feet and in, and making more in the 5-12 foot range and beyond. It clearly can't help me read greens better , but a smoother stroke/follow through, and less pulling/pushing, have paid dividends. I also think a more consistent stroke and follow through help at least a little on the distance control, but I wouldn't argue that one too vigorously.
  5. I've never seen one in use at a driving range, but for home practice the Fiberboard Flight Deck is a great "mat" for reducing injury potential and for not concealing fat contact like a flat mat. Needs an elevated surface to stand on is about the only negative.
  6. Looking forward to hearing people's thoughts on this one. I do both, mainly as a method to regulate distance, with both chipping and pitching clubs. For carrying it up to 20 yards, I use no wrist break. Beyond that it's gradually more wrist break (with a longer swing).
  7. If you decide that the balanced/zero torque potential is most important to you, you might also have a look at Axis1. They've been making "torque free" putters for 10 or 15 years now, with the shaft axis passing through the CG/impact point of the head. The look bothers some players, but their more recent offerings have gotten less weird to look down at. Their latest designs are usually available to try out in larger golf stores or pro shops. Their web site also has most of their historical offerings. Not common on tour, if that matters to you, but they are out there in the hands of a few players (Justin Rose is the most well known). I play an Umbra. Whatever you decide, good luck!
  8. No line for me. To my thinking, my eyes need to be directly over the ball to see correctly to get the line on my putter aligned with the line on the ball. When I tried it, I didn't think I was getting that alignment correct and it threw me off. I have to say, though, that a good roll from someone that uses a line is fun to watch.
  9. One tip that I recently took from Mark Sweeny when he was a guest on the Sweet Spot podcast: you're usually better off overestimating the break on a putt than underestimating it. I'm over-simplifying the entirety of his discussion with that summary, but I've found it helpful.
  10. Similar to OP, I wanted something I could track better in the air, both in clear skies and overcast. Red is a color whose visibility seems to vary with different individuals, but for me it showed up the air really well...a nice black dot that I could follow as far as one could hit it on most shots. Unfortunately I found it sometimes a bit harder to pick up on a green fairway or in the rough. I settled on OnCore's matte green (Vero X1). I see it easier in the air than white, yellow, or orange, and also a bit easier on the ground as well. On a slightly different track, I like looking down at a matte ball. Not entirely sure why...maybe there actually is something to the marketing claims about that. Might try Vice's lime green someday.
  11. +1 on the Fiberbuilt mat. Really nice for full swing work...you definitely know when you hit it fat, and it's pretty easy on the joints. I have the small version, the Flight Deck, and I had to construct a platform to stand on in order to use it because it puts the ball an inch or two off the ground. But it's far and away the best mat I've tried at home (backyard/net), and it's still in good shape after 2 years of pretty hard use.
  12. I really like my Fiberbuilt Flight Deck hitting mat...it's easy on the joints, feels closer to being real turf than most of the less expensive mat offerings, and lets me evaluate contact- I can tell if a shot would have been fat because I can feel that the impact was high on the face. It's holding up very well after two years of heavy use, some of that being chipping/pitching across my yard (up to about 55 yards), but mostly full iron shots into a net. I also like the portability since I move it around the yard a fair amount. The only real drawback of its design is that it's on the tall side, so I generally have to be standing on a platform if I want to get the ball at the same height as my feet. So it's a great hitting surface. However, a lot of my short game shots on the course are out of the rough, so I'd like to find something that better simulates imperfect lies. I see that there are a few small mats on Amazon that have "rough" sections. Has anyone tried these? Do they get any closer to simulating shots from the thick stuff? Are they reasonably durable? I know that an artificial mat can't truly simulate real conditions, but something with a bit less optimal lie than the typical hitting mat would still make at-home practice more profitable. Any recommendations?
  13. My stat tracking is transitioning. Breaking through the "90 wall" has been the goal for some time, but an elusive one. When I've been able to break 90, it's been interesting to experience that it didn't take miracle shots or a dazzling approach game- just gotta keep the ball in play/don't waste strokes. So, for much of this season, I've been tracking "un-useable tee shots" (including penalties) and 3-putts, since those were the biggest pareto items leading to wasted strokes. Lately, due to improvements off the tee and on the green, the "85 wall" is the new target. Still tracking tee shots and 3-putts, but I've started also keeping tabs on GIR and short game proximity/up-down (and proximity) as the next pareto items.
  14. Can't be easy to judge the broadcast on such a small sample...maybe you caught a bad 4-5 minutes? Quality was good for me (I watched on livgolf.com). There was a fair amount of shot tracer, but a lot of shots didn't have it also. Maybe they don't have it on all holes, and it gets lost due to the shotgun start and covering the whole course throughout the whole broadcast? After a few minutes to get used to it, I liked the leader board concept. I also like that it was constantly present, instead of coming and (mostly) going as I'm used to on televised PGA Tour events. LIV's leader board is definitely a big improvement once you understand it, IMHO. One criticism I have, though, is that they never showed distance to the pin for shots. I could also do with less sugary LIV cheer leading from the commentators, but I can't hold that against them, given that it's the inaugural broadcast and they're trying to drum up support...other than that they were fine.
  15. One of the MGS ball test summaries noted that when wet, a matte ball has "significantly" lower spin (or similar wording), but the overall test report didn't provide numbers, so I don't know what "significant" means. I've also seen a post by a MGS member with a launch monitor that shared methodology and numbers from his own testing of wet/dry glossy/matte balls...I didn't see great problems with his test process, and his results consistently had the opposite trend. So I don't know what to think. I use matte because I like the reduced glare at address.
×
×
  • Create New...