Ryan M

Fair point, and I should have added, that it took us 5hrs to play the black course. But it is a very long walk and the rough is absolutely ridiculous. That said, we were never waiting on anyone that I recall, and we never had anyone waiting on us. I think this is just a course where rounds take longer because of the conditions and it is walking-only. Funny story (sort of, not really to the wife). I was in NY for work, and took the day off to play Bethpage. Got an Uber out there, walked up, and got a walk-on time for the black course about 45min out. Awesome. Hit some warmup balls then went to the tee and met my caddy. Round took longer than I expected, and I think it was a Friday, so traffic was horrific. I got an uber to the train station and took train into the city, walked 2 blocks to hotel, showered, grabbed bags, and got an uber to Newark. Missed my flight. Oops. Problem is my anniversary is the next day! Delta took care of my though, booked me for a 6am flight the next morning, and I stayed at the airport Marriott in the parking lot. All worked out.

While the original post was about the presence (or lack thereof) of marshals, what the OP (and most of the thread) is really talking about is pace of play. I do think this needs to be broken out into a couple of different groups. Private Courses: Most private courses in my experience don't have marshals roving the course. They expect the members to police themselves, and if there is a problem, they call the pro shop to send someone out. Generally pace isn't an issue because if you are going to get a membership you are probably not a "2-3 times a year golfer" and even a 20 handicap player can play "fast". Resort Courses: Pace of play is a problem here mainly because it attracts so many players who play a few times a year. They have no problem hitting multiple drives (even though driver isn't really a "scoring" club), and are usually playing several penalty strokes (often without counting them...). I can somewhat get on board with this (emphasis on the "somewhat") because it is a resort course, I am probably on vacation, and taking a little extra time isn't so bad if the scenery is gorgeous. Bucket-List Courses: Like Torrey Pines, Pebble Beach, etc. While I don't necessarily like it, if I am paying $300 for Torrey or $700(+?) for Pebble, I am taking my time. You should just expect it. And while in general I am frustrated by people feeling they need to take 15 pictures on every hole, I get it on one of these courses. Just expect the round to take 5-6 hours and enjoy yourself. Notable exceptions to this imo are Bethpage and Bandon Dunes primarily because they are walking only. As such, you are typically only going to get people that are better players (and thus faster players), but I would still expect a 5hr round on Bethpage as the rough is absolutely ridiculous. Public/Muni Courses: I think this is where the real issue is. You have a mix of better players, and those that are learning. Often they do not have the budget for a full-time marshal, and even if they do, a marshal is going to be reluctant to ask people to skip a hole. Like many things, there is no single solution to this problem. A ranger/marshal might help, but so would people playing a forward tee, taking "gimme" putts, and capping their hole at +3 over par. Peoples attitudes are part of the problem as well and you are not going to be able to change their entitled and argumentative attitude. Best advice I can give you is to try and play early as it is typically better in the morning, and even if pace "feels" slow, sometimes it isn't. A few weeks ago I was playing with a foursome and we were relatively quick. We waited on almost every hole and shot. In the end tho, we finished just under 4:30, so not terribly slow, just slow for us.

It seems like the stealth 2+ doesn’t have many options on taylormade’s site. Are they likely to open this back up in the new year? I would like to order one with an up charge shaft in a 9 (or 8*) head, but not sure. What’s up? The standard stealth 2 allows “custom”.

FWIW, I find that I shoot similar scores from the Blue vs. White at my home course, and I get a handicap bump by playing blue tees. So I have been playing there more to improve my handicap. However, my home course isn't terribly long to begin with (Blue: 6,279; White: 5,855; and elevation of about 4,500 ft above sea level). To make up for the lack of length, the course has water in play on 13 holes, narrow tree-lined fairways, bunkers everywhere, and fast greens. So, you can't really overpower the course.

I am also watching for the next cube deal for the Tour X, but also waiting for the yearly Titleist "sale" (where you buy 3 dozen and get a 4th free) to re-stock left-dash.

Wasn't there an article recently talking about D/7# distance and how you should pick a tee box? Or at least your "default" tee box, the one you play the most rounds from. I also try to play several other tees over the season to ensure I get different clubs in my hand and have to play holes differently.

There is probably a direct correlation here as you improve as a golfer and the longevity of the ball going from "until I lose it" to "until it is scuffed". I am still improving. Starting to shoot lower 80's and losing balls less regularly. I think the question I have is when is a ball marred enough to replace? If there is a significant gash, I retire the ball to my wife's bag or the shag bag I take to the river. However, what about "minor" cover damage? What is "minor"? I know during the MyGolfSpy ball testing they also tested some balls with "minor" scuffs and saw significant performance impact. I am also a "value oriented" person. I think the question I am trying to figure out is when is "minor" cover damage sufficient for my handicap to be enough to change the ball? Like when I hit a ball with an iron or wedge, I will sometimes notice cuts in the cover. Or a small nick in the cover. What kind of % impact does that have with regard to distance/speed, launch, dispersion, etc. If I tend to draw the ball will this result in a significantly stronger draw? I kind of want numbers and percentages so I can determine if it is a large enough impact for me to change the ball.

So something else that kind of confuses me sometimes is the Most Wanted testing. Many manufacturers are on 2-year release cycles. It would be nice if the testing reflected the current offerings in each category, rather than the current releases. This may get a bit off-topic, and I assume this has been discussed before, but the search options of this forum are a bit challenging (or perhaps I am challenged?). I ask because I hit some Mizuno JPX 921 Forged irons at demo day of a local course and liked them. They are in the 2021 Most Wanted testing for Players Distance, but not in the 2022 testing. They are still a current offering from Mizuno right? It would be nice to see how it compares. Doesn't Ping and several others work on a 2-year release cycle? It just makes it hard if I am trying to identify what to test and if I can't see how a club released last year compares with clubs released this year. Couldn't the club from last year be better than this year? Or comparing Srixon ZX5/7 is difficult with their release cycle as well.

Ok, this was helpful. Are these general guidelines? Or does it mean that a Players iron will always have traditional lofts and never be hollow?

I apologize if this is the wrong forum. I see reviews from MGS for Players and Players Distance irons, and it seems like there is a lot of overlap. However, can someone explain the difference to me?

I have similar feedback to what has already been shared. I was a little disappointed in the new format, but I want to be fair and give it a few episodes. I know this may not represent reality, but my perception was that this was done as an after-thought with little preparation. Not saying that is what actually happened, but that was my perception as a viewer. I did have some follow-up questions on the change in how drivers are rated. How does this change previous years rankings? Being that the Ping G425 is now ranked as the most wanted driver, should it be viewed as the actual winner from the '21 Most Wanted testing as well since it was in that test pool? As this is just a shift in how you score various metrics, can't you apply this scoring calculation to previous tests? How would the Most Wanted Driver Shootout have been impacted by this new scoring formula? Will this new formula be used similarly for other tests (e.g. Irons, putters, balls, etc.)?

I am interested, just not sure my game is worth a $600 shaft...

A family member bought a home along a golf course to remodel. When he cleaned out the yard, he pulled out 300 or 400 golf balls. I threw out the low grade balls and non-urethane cover. Then after cleaning, if they had significant scuffs I also discarded them. This left me with maybe 100 balls in the Pro V1(x), Chrome Soft, TP5(x)/Penta, etc. Some of these were probably only a year or 2 old, but many were 5+ years old. For instance, I found a few of the Pro V1 392 balls. I usually shoot in the 80's. Am I a fool for playing these older balls? I hit a few of them yesterday on a course I play 50 times a year, and felt like I was losing distance on the driver. Maybe a little on irons too, but that was a bit harder to see and I could chalk some of that up to colder weather, damp conditions, and a little wind. However, I felt like I was losing 20 or 30 yards on drives. Are these balls old enough that I should not be playing them? Or is this all in my head and I just had a bad one?

I suspect this would be confusing to most consumers. The ones that really want this information are likely to research the individual shaft options themselves.

I hope this is the appropriate forum for this. I bought my wife a set of Wilson Ladies Profile HL clubs about 5 years ago as a starter set to see if she got into it. She has been playing more and more each year and I think I am to the point of upgrading her to a new set. I don't think she is to the point of getting fitted, and I would really like her to take a few lessons (will work on that separately). However, I want to get her upgraded to some higher quality equipment. The Wilson set includes: 1W (13.5*), 5W, 4H, 5-P, S, putter I know that you should always get fitted for clubs. I get it, however, her swing is still evolving and I hate to get her fitted for clubs now that won't be right in a year or 2. I also get the argument that it is better to spend money on lessons rather than fitting. I do plan to get her lessons this next season (if she will do them). It is like pulling teeth to get her to go to the driving range or putting green! What I was thinking is that I would like to get her some higher quality clubs, but not top-end or fitted. Then get lessons, work on her swing for another 2-3 years, then get her fitted. Am I being foolish and the Wilson set is better than I think it is and she should continue to play it until she is ready to get fitted? Or is it good to get her an upgraded set off-the-shelf? What is a good value on a med-level set of clubs off-the-shelf? Costco has a set of Callaway Edge 10-piece Women's Graphite Golf Club Set at that mid-level price. Is this the right balance of an upgrade without going for a fully fitted set? Or is this all foolishness and I should get her fitted for her full bag and spend the $1,500 hoping her swing doesn't change too drastically?