Gusset

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?

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.

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.

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.

Wish my contact points were consistently like that...looks great to me. Not much chance of hitting fat.

I'm in the Vancouver area. I'm not sure what to tell you about grass being hard to grow, that's not a generalization I'd make (though where I am, in the hills to the east, I've got more clay than I'd like). Last summer was a little on the brutal side, though. I can't speak to Green Meadows or Royal Oaks, the two main private courses I'm aware of...I haven't played them since high school in the 80s when I was on the golf team. There are a number of public courses in the immediate area to investigate. Generally what you might expect for a $40-60 green fee. Everyone will have their own thoughts, here are some of mine. Camas Meadows is probably the most upscale and well kept public course in SW Washington. Not much margin for error off the tee. I like the layout. It's uncommon- stretched out and meandering through the local woodlands and neighborhood...not a lot of side-by-side fairways. Most tees are a 2-3 minute walk from the previous green. Only drawback there comes when I'm walking and my playing partners are riding. Heron Lakes, just over the river in North Portland, has 36 holes. Being close to where the rivers meet, drainage isn't the best, so not my #1 option for winter golf. Good courses, tons of bunkers. I play most of my rounds at Tri Mountain in Ridgefield. Wind usually picks up in the afternoons. They keep it in pretty good shape...only complaint I have is with the bunkers (in need of a sand refresh/replenishment). Lewis River Golf Course, about a 30-45 minute away in Woodland, is probably my second most played course, largely because it's so peaceful and quiet. Front nine has a few holes that are a bit on the short side. #12 is the longest hole I've ever played, 620/647 from white/blue. This course recently came under new ownership, and yesterday the starter told me he's hearing mixed messages about the future. I'll let others speak to what's over the river in Portland and further south...some really nice courses there. If you don't mind a 5 hour drive, you can also keep going south and head for Bandon. I hope this overly long post is at least a little bit helpful.

When I started playing semi-consistently again about a year ago, I got a set of Tommy Armour 845s Silver Scots off ebay. I hit a lot of shots into a net, apparently too much for 30+ year old clubs starting to rust, and I broke the 3-iron shaft at the hosel about 8 months after getting them. I could make do without a 3-iron, but the 4-iron broke last week, and that's a bit more gap than I want to deal with. As much as I like the 845s, I've decided to move to something a little newer rather than replacing individual clubs (my 845s set is one of the very early ones with a 1-degree weaker loft than most of the production run had, and might be difficult to match). I know the prevailing wisdom is to buy new and get fitted, but realistically that can't happen. It's a "newer" used set, or stay where I am. Now to the question. I really like the Adams A3 19 degree hybrid I got last summer, and it's got me coming around to the prospect of a combined hybrid/iron set. After some digging, I'm leaning toward the Adams A7. Reports were that the hybrids are excellent, and the set's 5-iron does a good job of bridging the distance gap between the hybrids and irons, which was a concern I had based on my own hybrid experience. Buying based solely on what I've researched and read from others, without having actually hit them, doesn't really bother me. I've done that sort of thing with golf clubs (eg my 845s set), musical instruments, vehicles, etc., and it's a low $$$ risk I'm OK with. I'd likely continue to bag my 845s PW, W3, and W4. Has anyone here hit both TA 845s and A7 irons, and can give me a bit of a comparison? I lack experience with many different clubs, so I don't know how forgiving my TAs actually are, whether they're considered a GI set or something else, or how they compare to what came along as club design advanced.

Golf is fun, it gets me outside continuously for a few hours, the camaraderie is good (on those few occasions where I'm able to play with someone I know), and the moments where I make something good happen (a good drive, approach shot, putt, up/down, etc.) are really enjoyable. But what drives me is that I see it as a challenge to be conquered, from a score standpoint. I'll never be "good", but "better than I used to be" is a reasonable goal to be pursued.

I read an article that had much of his comments, and after "learning" what was there to glean, it's clear to me that there are a lot of factors I'm not up on. It sounds like the sort of thing that would probably make decent sense if I were immersed in it. I have to give the benefit of the doubt that he's not just interested in lining his own pockets. Whether he's a greedy jerk or whether he is speaking out for more than just his own interests, when Phil talks, he's heard more than a lot of golfers. If it's actually a thing worth standing up and talking about, would anyone listen to someone who hasn't been successful? If barely-keeping-my-card tour player Fred Furdledurk said the same thing, would anyone take note, or would there just be a flood of comments like, "Hey, loser, if you want more money, be a better golfer"?

Go through ebay...many reasons as stated, not to mention integrity- it's a violation of the policy you agreed to when you listed the item.

I totally missed that. Wiping the egg off my face now. Also- indeed, yes, the world of YT advice and instruction is definitely a quagmire that has to be thoughtfully navigated. I can attest.

I suppose I was just pushing back a bit against the initial responses in this thread (advising against watching YT golf instruction). Over-reaction on my part, my apologies.

I've never taken lessons, and for my own reasons, I have no imminent plans to. Maybe I don't belong on this forum. I learned my basic golf swing from the DIYer's YouTube predecessor known as a book (Jack's "Golf My Way"). Since picking up the game last year after over a decade away, my iPhone's video camera has helped me identify some (lifelong?) swing flaws, and a few poignant YT vids have helped me where they are concerned. Add in a few non-swing related vids and podcast episodes, and I've finally manage to improve from the mid-high 90s down into the 80s on occasion (never broken 90 before September). Clearly there's crap YT content to beware of, and clearly I'm not intending to brag about anything, especially surrounded by so many better players, but hopefully that improvement continues in 2022. As far as this vid is concerned, it seems disjointed and difficult to follow after the initial moments. On the positive side, though, his side-by-side comparison of the two swings that get into plane from different positions at the top (~6:20) was educational to me, showing a couple of examples of how a player can take a full backswing in different ways and bring it on plane in the downswing. I won't be applying any of that myself, but I still found it interesting.

Glad to hear things are progressing, and that your accident wasn't worse. My situation can't compare, but I'm in PT these days for "run of the mill" rotator cuff syndrome, so I feel for you. I'll be praying.

Might be a tough question, given that by the time someone knows a good answer, the shoes may no longer be available. Like in my case. I bought a pair of Callaway Del Mars last year. My experience is that they are waterproof and comfortable for a full round. I've played in soggy, spongy NW course conditions, as well as outright rain for most of a round, including some downpours (though I've never exceeded about a 2-inch deep puddle). On 3 back-to-back days of golf last month, wearing them for ~8 hours/day, my feet didn't complain any more than if I'd been wearing my Skechers. Looking on the Golf Galaxy web site just now, my Del Mars look fairly similar to the Solana variants. For whatever it's worth! EDIT: I see Del Mars on Amazon now...