Topline

About a year ago I switched from Cameron to the Byron Morgan brand. The reason I switched is because the Cameron putter line's head weight had become too heavy for my needs. Specifically, I am comfortable playing a 36.5" length putter, and at that extra long length it is helpful to have a relatively light putter head weight. Byron Morgan was capable and willing to make the 334 gram head weight I wanted, so I placed an order for one his DH89 (Anser-Newport style head) putters.Six weeks after placing my order I received a beautiful carbon head black oxide finish putter, including my specifications of 71* lie, 4* loft, topline, cavity and bumper stamps, On the practice green and course I came to believe that my Byron putter was of as good or better quality than the Cameron Newport and Cameon 009 models I had previously played. I have enjoyed playing the Byron DH89 black oxide so much I've since ordered and received the same putter model-specs with different finishes; including a carbon with oil can finish, a stainless with a bead blast finish, and a stainless with brushed finish. Now I rotate these 4 putters for my on course play and putting green practice sessions. If you have an idea for a custom job you would like, I recommend Byron Morgan , he makes a great putter

Rickie seemed to have a fun run of the single life, and now he is getting married: https://www.instagram.com/rickiefowler/?hl=en

I'll admit that a year ago , after watching Tiger suffer from the chipping yips, I thought his future would be struggling to shoot par. I thought his days of competing to win Tour events were finished. But this year he proven able to swing the club with some good rhythm-tempo, play good short game shots, and shoot low scores. Tiger is now 42 years old. During the coming 5 years what do you expect will be Tiger's golf tournament accomplishments? Average 1 win per season, no Majors? Collect 10 more wins over the next five years, including a Major ? 2 more Majors ? Tiger's got 14 majors and Nicklaus has 18. Will Tiger win 4 more and tie Jack's record, or win 5 to have more than Jack? Please post here your prediction for number of wins Tiger might get during the next 5 years, including Majors. I'll start by guessing Tiger wins 4 more Tour events, including 1 Major.

For about the past 10 years, depending on the course, I rotated in and out of the bag either a 20* - 22* hybrid or a 21* 3-iron. For the past 6 months I switched to carrying the 3-iron exclusively, so the hybrid was never within the bag. From my swing , flat terrain- sea level- no wind, the 3-iron carries 190-195 , medium trajectory, lots of bounce and roll. I've found my 3-iron shot to be useful for narrow par 4 tee boxes, 2nd shot par 5 lay-ups, and (if there is room to land short and bounce-roll to the middle of the green), 210-220 par 3 tee box shots. My 5 fairway metal is more versatile than the 3-iron. With the 20* 5 wood, if I open the face a touch, and grip down a bit at address, I can strike high trajectory shots from the fairway to carry 190 to 200, and from the rough the trajectory is a bit lower, with more bounce and roll, depending on the how bad the lie in the rough carry can be in the 180-190 range.From the tee box, good level fairway lie, or sitting up within the rough, my stock 5-wood is high trajectory with carry of about 210-215. So, the modern 5-wood is versatile. When hybrids were first introduced, about 20 years ago, it was at a time when 3-irons were built with little forgiveness.The modern 3-iron is weighted to promote a higher trajectory, and provide much more overall forgiveness, than the 3-irons of yesteryear. .My own experience is that while I do like the high trajectory-soft landings I can get from 19*-24* hybrids, I find them a bit less consistently accurate than an irons set's 3 or 4 iron. Also, the relatively lower trajectory of a long iron can often times be a useful shot when playing from tee boxes, par 5 second shot lay ups, or to open from greens that allow for some bounce and roll. Some players , for their own reasons, prefer to play hybrids more so than irons, and that's great. I know a guy who often shoots par or lower and the longest iron in his bag is an 8-iron. If he could find an 8-iron loft hybrid he liked he would probably buy it. But if a player enjoys swinging his irons, he might want to consider giving the 3 and 4 iron that come with his iron set a try, instead of automatically thinking long irons should be replaced with hybrids.

The following golf story is about my 17 year old son, Spencer. From the time he was in a baby stroller I took him to driving ranges. He got some sunshine and, or, napped while I struck balls for a 40 minutes. Later, from about age 4-11, Spencer would use the different clubs I picked up for him to strike balls along side me at the driving range. For each of those seven years Spencer probably put in 12 hours of driving range , chipping and putting green time. I would take him on average once per month and we would stay at the course for an hour each time. Early on Spencer learned a traditional, fundamentally sound grip-posture-alignment. Consequently, the swing he naturally developed over these years looked attractive, like an accomplished player might have. Once Spencer turned 12 years old he continued to visit a driving range on average of once per month, and I began taking him to play par 3 courses five or six times per year as well. During his 14th summer he took 3 lessons from a PGA pro , visit driving ranges and putting greens, and he began for the first time to play full length regulation courses. The last couple of years, as a 15 and 16 year old, he has had a lesson with a PGA teaching pro each year, averaged about 15 hours per year of riving range-chipping-putting green practice, and also each year played 7 to 8 rounds at a par 3 course, as well as 5 or 6 rounds at full length regulation courses. In summary, from age 4 to his current age 17, Spencer has put in roughly 250 golf related hours: 170 hours driving range-chipping green-putting green 80 hours playing either par 3 or full length regulation courses. 4 to 5 hours of lessons from a PGA teaching professional. The golf performance result of the above hours is that now 17 year old Spencer shoots somewhere between 95 and 110 on a par 72, 6,500 yard course. Spencer is an above average athlete. From age 5 to 10 he spent four hours per week at a karate studio en route to earning a 2nd degree black belt. From age 11-13 he performed well on his grammar school soccer, basketball, and baseball teams. For the past 3 years he has been a high school student, each Fall playing on the football team (offensive tackle and defensive end) and during the Spring he competes for the track team ( throwing the shot put, discus, running 200 meter sprints, and 4X100 relays). Throughout his years Spencer never "got the golf bug", he has visited the the range or played rounds only when I asked him to do so. Once there he seemed to enjoy himself reasonably well, but not as much as he does playing other sports. Sensing his preference for other sports, I have tried to be a "good father" and not push him too much towards golf. He is a great son, I could not imagine having a better one. Now back to the original question........."how many hours does it take to get good at golf"? Based on my own experience as a junior player, including knowing kids who dedicated probably 7,500 hours towards golf (during the 6 years from age 12-17), driving range-chipping-putting green-junior tournament play etc... to be able to consistently shoot par by age 17. And others less naturally gifted who put in the same 7,500 hours but only achieved performance of about 75-78 scoring average. Other kids who "liked golf" but didn't love, or because of other reasons could not commit so much time to the game, maybe put in 3,000 hours during that 6 year , age 12-17 time frame and ended up being high 70's, low 80's scoring players.And all of the above are kids. It's reasonable to believe that kids learning to play golf, or ski, or play a musical instrument have several advantages over adults trying to do the same thing. The reason I told the story of my son's golf background is that his is one which I have witnessed . For him putting in more than the 250 or so hours he's put in was not something he wanted to do. He had other interests, which is fine. Maybe later in his life he will want to spend time playing golf, and hopefully the bit he has played up until now will be of some benefit. The point of the novel I have written here, I think, is that learning and developing golf skills takes a lot of hours. If one wants to call shooting high 70's low 80's "good at golf" I think it is fair to say that for most, this takes a minimum of 3,000 hours, including instruction, driving range, chipping-putting green practice, and playing. And if one wants to consistently shoot around par, the hours needed probably go up to a minimum of 7,500. Anybody here agree, disagree that there is no short cut of time to get the skill necessary to hit fairways and greens, play a course the way it was designed to be played etc...?

I know that financial reasons have long been the reason that par 3 courses are not more prevalent. Specifically, courses are unable to charge high enough greens fees to justify the cost of owning-operating a par 3 golf course. Also, in recent decades most new golf courses were constructed by real estate developers aiming to sell golf course home sites, and a par 3 course does not fit the business model for selling homes. That said, if somehow more par 3 courses could be constructed, I think this would serve the game very well. Par 3 courses are perfect for youths and adults who are beginners to the game. Par 3 courses are ideal for super seniors for which long yardage shots and, or, long days are not a good fit. Par 3 courses are great for any skill level player looking to sharpen their short iron , wedge, putting game. Pace of play on a 9 hole par 3 course is usually 1.5 hours or less. So, there are lots of reasons that additional par 3 courses may be good for the game. I think if the golf industry is concerned about lack of participation, then major organizations (USGA, PGA Tour) and companies (Nike-Titleist-Ping-Callaway etc...) should consider trying to promote the construction and operations of par 3 courses. If you agree or disagree with the above, please post your thoughts.

Through the 1960's, 70's and 80's Tour players were using wooden head clubs with steel shafts and wound balls covered with balata. To consistently strike solid, accurate shots with this equipment required especially good rhythm-tempo-timing. Without these positive swing attributes , the equipment of decades past would often produce blocked, sliced, or duck hooked shots. Due to the lack of forgiveness of the clubs, these type misses were common for Tour players, especially during high pressure situation. In contrast, the forgiveness of current technology metal woods and graphite shafts allows today's Tour players to go as hard as they can at the ball, sometimes falling out of tempo-rhythm-balance, yet still produce reasonably playable shots. For irons and wedges, while the difference in forgiveness is not as significant as it is with metal woods vs wooden heads, today's Tour player "blades" are 20% larger than 70's blades and half the Tour players today use perimeter weighted cavity back irons. So slightly mishit irons shots are not penalized near as much today. I believe most of today's Tour players are better athletes, better conditioned etc... than the previous generation of Tour players. But considering how much more demanding the equipment was of the Nicklaus era 60's, 70's and 80's, I think it required more skill (to be competitive, make cuts, win events) of a player back then than it does today. Whether you agree or disagree with the above, please post your thoughts on the subject of Tour player skills today vs the Nicklaus-Trevino-Miller-Watson era of the 1960's, 70's, 80's.

I know many do not care for Johnny Miller's broadcasting work, but I've always enjoyed listening to him. I'm not sure about this, but believe that this season NBC may have been testing Peter Jacobsen and Justin Leonard as possible replacements for Miller when he retires. These two guys are likely nice gentlemen, had fine playing careers etc... but I do not find their broadcast work to be either interesting or entertaining. Just too bland without offering the insight I think Miller has always offered viewers. For a Miller replacement I would not mind Judy Rankin (she is very insightful regarding the shots played, player technique used,player mind set etc...). I also enjoy Lanny Wadkins commentary. And I believe Paul Azinger would be excellent. And Roger Maltbie would be fine as well, if he moved from the course to the booth. So those are a few of my favorite names who might be a good fit to succeed Johnny Miller as NBC's lead color commentary broadcaster opposite Dan Hicks. When Miller retires, who would you like to see get his job ?

I have never used a launch monitor. Of course I've heard the name Trackman and assume that is a launch monitor. Regardless, my question is about the electronic measuring devices (whether it's called a launch monitor, Trackman, or something else). On the club reviews found at YouTube, golf discussion forums etc...the numbers given for carry distance and total yardage often seem to me to be of incredibly long yardages. For example, driver shots carrying 300 yards, hybrids more than 240, 6-irons carrying 200 plus yards etc.... In my home area of Northern California I am fortunate enough to attend Tour events at Harding Park GC (Amex World Championsip, President's Cup) Olympic Club (US Open), Pebble Beach and Spyglass Hill (annual AT&T event as well as US Open). I've also travelled to So Cal to be in the gallery for the annual San Diego tournament at Torrey Pines and Los Angeles event at Riviera CC. So, I've seen up close shots at Tour events and the yardages the Tour players carry their shots are less distance than the internet posted Trackman club review videos. Does this mean the launch monitors are faulty and, or, geared to produce yardages different from actual on course yardages ? Do players who use launch monitors "build in" a plus 10% or plus 20% factor from the launch monitor, and then revise accordingly when playing a golf course ?

Off the tee boxes I believe large head drivers, fairway metals , and irons are fine. However, from sloped, grassy, sandy, hard pan other less than ideal lies, I think the current industry standard of large heads may be less forgiving than the clubs of 20 years ago. For example, the original Tommy Armour 845 was a very popular iron model featuring a relatively small club head size with a deep cavity (plenty of perimeter weighting). This made for a very forgiving iron, suitable for all skill levels from beginner to Tour pro. Today, just about every iron design , even today's so called "players cavity backs", from all the major brands, is quite a bit larger in size than the old 845's, Ping Eye 2's, or other irons from that era. And today's fairway metals are much larger than the old Taylor Made Tour Preferred or Titleist PT, or original Callaway Bertha fairway metals of 20 years ago. Those fairways were relatively easy to play from sloped or other less than ideal lies.I think the modern fairway metals are sensible to play off tee boxes, but not so much off the ground (unless the lie is ideal). Do you agree or disagree that while today's relatively large club heads offer forgiveness in some areas, they are less forgiving from certain types of lies.

For most players, I believe being fit for clubs is overrated, and may even be counterproductive. The following is my reasoning. When a fitting client strikes balls the fitter is typically watching the ball flight and then making equipment adjustments to correct and, or, improve ball flight trajectory, accuracy etc....After the fitting, the player is provided with recommended club specifications which promote his swing faults. I understand the majority of players do not have the time or inclination to learn fundamentally sound swing technique, but an equipment fitting using swing faults is ingraining same and likely harming the players chances for ever improving his swing technique. So, the above is about dynamic fitting, which I question. However, I do believe there is merit to static fitting, which provides club specifications based on a persons height, wrist-to-floor measurements. In summary, I think static fitting may promote fundamentally sound address position and swing while dynamic fitting may promote swing faults. Please reply to this thread with your thoughts, thanks.

I am DG and have enjoyed (for years) the My Golf Spy equipment reviews. Now I have found the site's forum and plan to participate here.