Beakbryce

If you are beginning, I think group lessons are productive, like the PGASS series. There are a lot of things that go into a golf swing and a group lesson on grip, stance, swing thoughts can be useful, at a price point to get started. Even a group lesson should be only 4-6 people though. I have seen pro's take on 15 people and no one got anything out of that. Once one is playing, then targeting weak areas, 1 on 1 can be very beneficial. You still need to clearly determine the course of the 1 on 1 lesson. When I had been playing for about a year, one of the courses 18th hole was a par 5 with a small lake in front of the green. To that point I had been learning on my own, but couldn't seem to teach myself a pitch shot to hit over the lake. I decided to take a 1 hour lesson with the pro to learn to pitch the ball. I specifically requested a pitching lesson to have a shot to get over the lake. First, the best lesson he could have told me was to not lay up so close until I was completely comfortable pitching the ball. Leave a full shot in. This lesson is all over golf everywhere now. Early 80's not so much. Second, he wanted me to show him my chip shot first, which is what I used around the greens. This was before the days of specialty wedges. My sand wedge was a Wilson R-90 at 54 degrees. After a half hour of him fiddling with my chipping motion, I was shanking everything and we hadn't even begun to talk about pitching. I left it there. I learn by watching and mimicking, all the instructor had to do was hit a few pitch shots, ball position and swing thought demo, and I would have got it. It put me off so much I never took another lesson from a golf pro. When I begun to teach, I took that lesson to heart to narrow down 1 on 1 lessons on a focused item, find out how the student learns, and explain my approach before starting the lesson. If it wasn't what they were thinking was going to happen and we couldn't agree on the problem and a solution, we didn't start. My course had a teaching pro and 4 of us in the pipeline so we could usually accommodate everyone.

Yup, had to put the raincoat on for 1 hole today, high of 58, cloudy. I almost didn't go. My buddies texted they just didn't want to play. I know, but compare that to 115 in September. It's all relative. I actually prefer 115 but there you go. It's why I moved to AZ. Here's to better weather for everyone.

Just a follow-up. This picture of a white headed Mizuno driver taken at the Tour stop. I think I would have liked this better. Still think the Mizuno Blue color would be the cat's meow.

This golf digest article is a hoot. Another way to use numbers. https://www.golfdigest.com/story/shocking-new-data-average-driving-distance-tee-boxes-pga-tour?utm_medium=email&utm_source=011824&utm_campaign=gdplus&utm_content=DM48449&uuid=c0134a3c-d4c8-4b40-8a0b-67b5b9b22151 For most of the yardages defined for each driving distance, my course doesn't even have tees that short. Fun Times!

Looking forward to this discussion.

I hit it once on 18 today. 172 to the pin, uphill, tad bit of wind. 15 feet right pin high. Keeper.

Ok. I was going to just read this thread for a while because I have said everything I wanted to say and all of us seem to be set in our path. Plus the wife suggested that by 2030 comments now are pretty mute. Ok, but what fun is that? I love the discussion. Today I heard all the brew ha ha about 10K INERTIA. It's like the club manufactures are daring the USGA to come after MOI. I'm done. For now.

I hit it 3 times today with good yardage, although it was cold and windy. Work yet to do. I have my GBB 19 6&7 hybrid at -1 and neutral. I do this with all my adjustable clubs except the driver because lowering the loft on an adjustable club opens the club face and usually this takes out the draw tendency of Callaway clubs. I hit these clubs sky high and straight. I started with that setting. First shot curved right. Closed the face a little and the next shot was a 5 yard fade. Closed it a bit more and the 3rd shot was dead straight. Hit this one off a downhill lie and the ball did not get very high. Changed to -1 with a draw setting. We will see how that works. Club swings easy. Can feel the load on the backswing and head weight is very nice. I may just hit the drive and play from 175 no matter where the ball goes on the drive for testing purposes. Frankly, would be happy with 165 yards as my yardages are based on 100 degree weather with 2 yards taken off for each 10 degree drop. Today it was 40 when we started so 12 yards lost from base line.

I am trying to fix a gap in my longer yardages. I have a heaven wood and a 4 hybrid with virtually the same degree of loft but the wood has a 5 wood shaft so it is 10 yards longer. My next shorter club is a 6 hybrid. The problem is I am not in love with the need to choke up on the 4 hybrid to cover the 5 hybrid yardage. It results in a really low shot. This is a 2 fold test. I bought a 5 Paradym X hybrid to see if it could fit the gap better. I am hoping to gain 5 yards over what I think a BB19 hybrid would go and then choke up on the heaven wood which I love to work. The second part of the test is if the 5 hybrid doesn't go far enough, I am going to take the shaft out of the 5 and put it the 4 as that shaft works perfectly in my 6&7 hybrid. Its a 460 ESX recoil shaft. I hit the 6&7 higher than any clubs I have ever owned but can also knock them down. The hybrid arrived yesterday from Callaway pre-owned. This is the first time I have bought a "very good" club and it is as advertised. There are some scratches on the leading edge but otherwise looks new. The Paradym X is described as wood looking rather than a traditional hybrid. As you can see from the photos, this basically means the face is without the square areas on the heel and toe. I quite like how it looks. Left to right, the heaven wood, 4 hybrid, 5 hybrid, 6 hybrid. The face on the 5 hybrid looks more like the heaven wood than the boxy shape of the Big Bertha hybrids. I don't have a launch monitor yet but I do have a mat on my back porch. This club feels peachy. Swings super easy. Hopefully, I get to hit it tomorrow, weather permitting. If you have any specific questions, let me know.

Sure, it could just be R&D. R&D now is about modifying the current ball within given parameters. This ball will be a whole new ball. But still just R&D. The new ball could also require major retooling. Ball centers and layers may be different sizes. The chemical composition of the layers may change. Dimples will probably change. I mean, something has to change. As you say, we won't know for years. The other consideration is how many are going to buy the ball between 2028 and 2030 if they don't have to. The companies are going to have to fund those 2 years. They could just offer the new ball and hope for the best in 2028. Best guess is they will produce both balls. That will have to be more expensive. Will the companies absorb the cost or pass it on? Yes, it's a jump to assume they will be more expensive, but kind of a logical one.

I agree totally as well. However, can I send you my address for the pristine premium Urethane-covered ones you throw away...

In order: 1. Rats 2. Maybe me and I could be totally wrong, but in general the readership of MGS seems to be a lot of really dedicated golfers who are totally immersed in the game. Serious golfers. I agree that most forum members don't use a ball for a number of rounds. I have read that forum. However, I have extolled the virtues and outright fun of the site to most of my friends and they are kind of "meh" because the tests, forums, etc. really don't impact them like most of us with intense desire for knowledge here on the forum. I don't know anyone who only plays a ball for 22 holes unless they lost it. Just think that's the difference in who we play with and what we are hoping to accomplish. In general, we aren't that serious. We are just happy to be upright and out of the house. There is one exception. I have one friend that plays in the city and state tournaments, I will ask him and probably get at least one new ball a round. I'll let you know. The rest of us are playing for fun and 5 rounds are probably normal. My golf budget per year is pretty large as I play with my wife. To play a new ball a round at a minimum 156 rounds a year for each of us would cost an additional $1400 plus. Would that result in even one gained shot a round? I have other things that I need that money can buy. I'm sure you have heard the Lee Trevino story about his first tournament in the PGA. It might have been at his first US Open, not sure. I don't know how that pertains but it's funny. Maybe play 4-5 rounds with the same ball and unless, after being honest about the swing and playing conditions, if the ball goes basically where you intended you keep playing. See what your scoring average is. Look on it as just another test. You might be surprised... Not to mention playing with one ball might be like betting with no money in your pocket. Increased attention. Tin Cup moment. 3. If pro's are using stats that show longer is better, even if the ball goes offline, is offline really the most important thing? The ball deviated 10 yards. At my swing speed, would that be 4-6 yards? I'll take it and gladly hit in one less club.

If you believe you won't pay more for the conforming ball to make up for the companies research into producing the ball... then you are right, there won't be a "tax". If, you believe you won't pay more for the conforming driver you will have to play because that's coming next... then you are right, there won't be a "tax". It may not be paying the USGA, but they are going to influence, with this rule change, your pocketbook and not in a good way. I respect your decision to support the USGA and all they do for golf. I am not saying that funding golf initiatives and turf research isn't a good thing. If you believe in their mission you should fund them. What I am saying is this will be more expensive for all of us whether we chose to support them or not, whether they choose to listen to us or not.

Ok, I read this test when it came out. This test was for "scuffed" balls and not undamaged found balls. The test indicated as a conclusion "If you’re trying to figure out if it’s time to replace your ball, a good rule of thumb is that if there’s enough damage that you can feel it when rubbing your finger over the ball, it’s probably best to toss it in the shag bag before it impacts your score". Maybe one of the tests after the ball test this year could be testing a new ball, would it survive a couple of 100 hits without marked degradation. Couple of hundred hits would be all the clubs through the bag including chips and pitches, not just the driver. If it remains un-scuffed, would it perform? A couple of hundred hits would be about 5 rounds. My friends and I have more than 5 rounds on lots of found balls. @fixyurdivot reported 14 rounds on an AVX. Look, I know we play for fun and not competition, but if a ball is being a squirrel, we don't continue to play it. Also would like to see the tests accomplished with both the 150ish and 125 MPH driver ball speeds with corresponding speeds for the other clubs, i.e. if the driver is 125 the 8 iron would be whatever, chips and pitches a lot less. A lot of MGS tests are high ball speed which isn't where a lot of us are. The light scuffed ball actual went farther. So the test could still continue with a lightly scuffed ball. I would be in the camp of little statistical difference, particularly at the lower ball speed. However, if the ball loses 15 yards and goes a little further offline at 150mph, the ball manufacturers could choose some mass method of whacking thousands of balls at a time 100 times and convince the USGA that is how they would give them to elite players to meet the new rule. Not like elite players buy their balls. Then sell the unhit balls to the rest of us. We would all be using the same ball. Problem solved. I know, sometimes I even shock myself with these ideas.

Maybe it's just being in AZ! Balls don't deteriorate here. I am pretty sure I have had some balls with 10-11 rounds on them but 14 rounds, outstanding! Apparently, MGS has done some tests with noted degradation of the ball. Maybe if we just pretend found balls work, they will!

Shucks! My whole golfing expenditure priority just took a massive hit! Actually, I haven't seen that in real play but maybe an 85 MPH swing doesn't make a Pro V1 go Owwwwwwwwwww! Now I need to go look up the test! Thank you for letting me know. Link?

It took 4 full attempts to read this to my wife I was laughing so hard. Well done!

That is a fundamental difference. It isn't their game. It's our game. Who voted them in? Do you pay dues to the USGA? I don't. Taxation without representation is still tyranny.

That says it all! Thanks for that.

This discussion is not about recycled balls as they are truly not deserving. I have bought one dozen new golf balls in the last 10 years and that only because I was sent a Dick's gift card and there wasn't anything else to buy there. I find on the course and then use several different brands of quality balls and it doesn't seem to affect my score. I have played Titleist balls to where the Titleist almost can't be read. Trust me that if the ball was ruining my score it would get tossed. For most people, the ball is much higher quality than their swing. I think MGS should hit a single ball a couple of hundred times and see exactly what the yardage and offline difference is from beginning to end. That would be a cool test and maybe put to rest this notion that a ball like the Pro V1 can't be hit a couple of hundred times without significant loss. I have found a couple of balls that didn't fly right, but easy to diagnose after a swing or 2 and I just tossed those. 99% still playable. Every found ball is like $2-5 in savings to be put towards other stuff. Like clubs, bags, green fees. It's all about priorities.

Uh, yes!

The reason there are so many grinds in specialty wedges, like Vokeys, is to optimize turf conditions and swing path. In my local area, desert golf, one would think that the turf is always rock hard so maybe buy a grind for that turf. But it isn't true all year round. I have Vokeys, and they play better during the summer than the winter. If you buy irons and they interact with the turf in a pleasant way, then I think set wedges. I am really looking for a replacement for my 50 Vokey and having bought Rogue ST irons this year I am thinking about their gap wedge as I like the turf interaction.

So, the whole bag was safe, right? Pulled the trigger on a Paradym X 5 hybrid to maybe better fill the only kind of gap in my bag. I have a heaven wood and a 4 hybrid at about the same degree lofts but use the 4 for low shots and wood for high shots. Additionally, the longer shaft on the heaven wood results in a 10 yard difference. The problem is the next club down is a 6 hybrid so have been trying, with mixed success, to choke down on the 4 hybrid to cover the yardage gap. Hence the 5 hybrid. Callaway pre-owned has a 24% off sale going and I found one with the shaft in my 6 hybrid that I really like. Time of year means it isn't shipping for a few days. Stand by for a mini review and how the gapping works going forward.

when I started playing I watched to see how I could improve. There was a lot more demo work during the broadcast which increased my understanding of the game. Now we are lucky to see one swing analysis and it's usually the driver. I read a lot of golf magazines as well. I still watch all year long. I watch them all btw, PGA, LPGA, college. I watch in fast forward. I slow down for good shots. To many commercials, too much talk from the talking heads. I really hate it when they are doing the best player to not win a major or best players not playing well. It's a 40 year career for these players. Slumps? I am surprised there aren't more slumps. There is a reason I really like the European announcers. Some light reminiscing and a little yardage work. None of this "it's an impossible shot" that a 10 handicapper could handle. Sure, some of them are really hard, but a lot of them are mere hyperbole. Especially out of traps. Let's face it. They went from Venturi to Miller to Azinger to Immelmann. They all spoke the truth but it's a lot kinder and gentler group now days. VANILLA. Kizner, now that should be fun. Golf magazines are all about selling expensive golf crap. Nothing new there anymore. Or maybe at 71 I have just lost my patience. There are better how to videos on you tube now than any telecast tries to provide. Thank you Quite The Chap. Want to grow the game? Show people how to play it. Sure I want to watch the players going at each other. Love the pressure. It's amazing that out of a 156 player field one person ends up better when they are all good. I had 2 rounds this year where it felt like I couldn't miss. Must be how they feel day in and day out. Would it kill them to show the really difficult shots from the day before, analyze lie etc, what options were available, and then demo the shot from the same location? They could do this before play the next day and intersperse those within the telecast. Say 2 an hour. I would rather see 8-10 of those than watch players wonder around the green looking at a 2 foot putt for what seems like 10 minutes. I mean, who needs the line on the ball lined up for a 2 foot putt? With todays greens, I would like to see a player have to putt out and get it done in less than 90 seconds. By that I mean when it is your turn, you putt until it's in the hole and you have 90 seconds. The greens look hard enough not to really bother if one is on someone's line. If they are soaked, then revert to todays way. Lets go. In fact, shot clock for everyone. Set up behind the green. Like football.

Home simulator equipment. The ongoing Rapsado test is very illuminating as the kinks are worked out. Those testers and other contributors have one of the best test threads going. I am intensely interested in "quiet" nets, turf mats, and launch monitors.