Wounded Duck Golf Blog

Golfers are very tough on themselves

2009-11-14T23:49:00.000-08:00

This is some random dude that was part of our menage a singles. He only hit 2 shots that were anything close to what he intended to hit, and they were putts. After almost every drive, which he popped up, he flung his club in disgust and uttered, "What the fuck is WRONG with you, you fucking idiot." No joke. I've been that guy, and now having seen it from the outside, it isn't a lot of fun to be around. He had a "Raytheon" cooler slung from his push cart, and I wondered if he was an engineer who was dissatisfied with his life in some way, which would explain his anger at himself.

This is another random guy I was paired with (okay, I was quarduped(?) with him) and he's one of those old guys who has a weak yet unremittingly straight shot. He had a cold and complained about it the whole time. Towards the end he started hitting shanks, and like random dude #1, was not happy, "What in the FUCK am I doing? You have got to be FUCKING kidding me."

Why are we so mercilessly cruel to ourselves?

However, one thing to remember is that dude #1 and I were wearing shorts. It was mid-November, 80s, and not a cloud in the sky. No way were these two guys going to get me down. More pics of the day:

Heaven left me

2009-11-11T06:50:00.000-08:00

You're at the driving range. You're hitting balls, some fat, some thin. When suddenly, you notice something: you just hit a perfectly awesome shot. Like a massive pipe which has miraculously been cleared of a great jam, something is flowing through you unimpeded, and your swing opens up like a view from mountain onto a glorious plain. You wonder if it's a freak, so you go again. Another great shot. And another. And these aren't just good shots, they're the best of shots, because they're effortless. Simple. A breeze. Unconscious. You couldn't not hit a great shot if you were told to do so. Then this thought occurs, "Why, I must have discovered The Swing. My The Swing. My god, if I just keep replicating this swing, I'll never have to worry about my swing again. This is it. I'm home."

You play that weekend, and The Swing holds up. It's still there. Of course, you learn you're still prone to hitting a few off-line, but still, the guts of The Swing are present and working. You wrap up the round having a beer with your buddy, and feel satisfied, yet eager: The Swing worked, but there are a few kinks you'd like to work out before the next time you play. Easy enough. Kinks are no big deal.

You're at the driving range. Hitting balls. You think, "Okay The Swing, do your stuff!" You recall in your golfing brain how The Swing felt, what it looked like, and set about recreating that sense. And then it happens. The Swing doesn't show up. Something like The Swing appears. It has the same general shape as The Swing, and yet some essential "something" is missing. This isn't The Swing, it's its ghost. "But wait," you think, "I'm doing everything the same. Shoulders go like this, take away like this..." and yet, only the ghost remains. The flow is gone. This swing, quite unlike The Swing, is again, like all your other swings, work. "Come back to me, Swing, come back. I'm not angry at you. We can be friends, really, really good friends. Please come back." But it doesn't. The ghost of The Swing looks at you with sunken eyes, mute lips, thinning hair. It can't help you. Even it can't remember its identity, what it was like to effortlessly throw balls high into the air and land them beautifully on the flag. You stand there befuddled, wondering how to get The Swing back. But it's gone. Nothing you can do will bring it back. And you curse yourself. I had it. Now I don't. Damn the sun and the grass.

That's golf.

Ye who hurtest me

2009-02-06T18:28:00.000-08:00

Golf takes a lot to watch. Most think you're nuts to spend hours watching a bunch of out-of-shape dudes hitting golf shots. These people have no idea where the real pain comes from:

Commentators.

Nantz. Azinger. Tilghman.

These people talk about golf on a professional basis, so listening to them should be a joy. But it's not, it's fingers on a chalkboard. Pain. Bleeding ears. So I present to you my best and worst picks of golf commentators.

Best golf commentator

Johnny Miller

This man is a golf God. Not only does he have the bona fides ('63 Oakmont anyone?) to call "choke" on any pro's shot, but he actually can't help himself from saying it--he has no "off button." Puke, choke, duff, and fan are all part of his lingual repetoire, and in contrast to the corporate shills who call golf at other channels, Johnny is like daylight in a musty basement.

2nd Best golf commentator

David Feherty

I have a theory that the more a person suffers the better a coversationalist they become. Feherty seems to fit the bill--a journeyman pro (suffering) who had an over-enthusiastic fondness for Scotch (more suffering) who's Irish (double suffering). This type of guy usually has a unique perspective on life and golf. Love him. Would love to have a drink with him.

3rd Best golf commentator

Roger "Rog" Maltbie.

Nothing more need be said. Except he's the ham to Johnny Miller's eggs. During a broadcast nothing makes me happier to hear, "John that was a heckuva shot."

4th Best golf commentator

Nick Faldo

Faldo is an ego (full disclosure: I worked as a cable-puller for CBS at Firestone in Akron, and he once chided a friend and coworker for moving during a putt: "You'll never work in this business again." Of course none of us worked in "the business" in the first place so we laughted pretty hard) but when he works for the Golf Channel, he's spot on with his assessment of the mindset of pro's brains. He's perceptive, irreverant, and ballsey. But once he starts calling it for CBS it's a new, boring ballgame...

5th Best golf commentator

Gary McCord

Anyone who can be banned by the crackers at Augusta National for uttering "bikini wax" is okay in my book.

Tie: Jerry Foltz, Curt Byrum, Brandel Chamblee

If only the broadcast golf guys could learn to be as straighforward as these guys.

6th Best golf commentator

Ian Baker-Finch
Like Feherty, this guy has suffered--he won the Open, and then... was never heard from again. He has humility and only calls players on failure of brain (i.e. stupid plays) and not failure of body (pushes, pulls, slices, hooks, et al). Baker-Finch carries a snarky-free zone around him when he commentates and for that I thank him.

7th Best golf commentator

Frank Nobilo
A bright spot at the Golf Channel, he's pretty fair in his crit of pro players. "Bad, not good, weak, un-smart" are never parts of his lexicon, which leads me to think he has a heart and listens to it. Frank's family is also part of a 300-year wine-producing tradition (which can never hurt my estimation of anyone.)

8th Best golf commentator

Peter "Oostie" Oosterhuis
A well-heeled Brit with impeccable decency, this dude will never, ever, ever say anything unseemly about a golfer. Although I implicitly don't trust tall golfers (he's 6'7", the extra leverage is an unfair advantage) this guy I trust.

Now, let me show you my picks for "worst" golf commentators.

1st Worst golf commentator

Jim Nantz
There are two kinds of sportscasters: those who feel lucky to witness sport's great moments and those who feel they are sport's great moments. Needless to say, Nantz is the latter. It's almost as if the golf event takes place so that Nantz can encapsulate it with a "timeless" comment (who can forget "A win for the ages" after Wood's (painfully boring) '97 Masters' win). It's especially galling to watch him call the Masters, where he tempers every boring comment against the constrictive standards of the Old Boys' Network at Augusta. Nantz is kind of like the former U.S. generals who pimped positivity for the Pentagon: bought and paid for.

2nd Worst golf commentator
Lanny Wadkins
I'll bet my paycheck that Lanny is a by-the-numbers-rich-guy-ain't-gonna-pay-no-taxes Republican, but that isn't my beef with him (though I love pointing this out). His problem is that he's boring and offers no more golf insight than a gila monster. A player hits a shot offline, Lanny responds, "Jim, that is not a good shot." Really? I didn't know you needed to jar a sand shot at the '83 Ryder Cup to have such genius insight.

3rd Worst golf commentator

Curtis Strange
Like Wadkins, Strange comes from the "painfully obvious" school of commentating. "Ian, that was not a good shot by [insert pro golfer name.] His challenge on the next shot is to hit a good one." Duh.

And what is it with pro golfers and hunting?

Peter Kostis

Greeks make good gyros but I can't figure out what Kostis's value-added contribution to golf is. He's got a great rug, but aside from that, I'm lost as to why I have to listen to him chatter-on every weekend.

Gary Koch
His only claim to fame is his fetish with 3-woods that take a divot from the tee box. Exciting.

Azinger is a weirdo. Remember the clip where a player's caddie puts his hand on the player's butt to help him into a tree to find his ball? Azinger "wouldn't put his hand there." Remember when Azinger called Fred Funk the "...most accurate driver in golf" and Faldo told him to "...hang on a tick: what about the Euros?" Azinger is, and continues to be, a mess, and the sooner he leaves broadcasting the sooner I can forget worring about his next homophobic comment.

Honorable mention best/worst commentator

Kelly Tilghman

Kelly Tilghman is not a bad golf commentator. She knows golf in and out. But she's not "one of the boys"--though she desperately tries to act the part. As an actor, she's not experienced enough to improvise (remember Tiger's "lynching"?) and she's not comfortable enough with Faldo (6-time major winner) to ham-n-egg it. She tries to be Jim Nantz (or at least who Jim Nantz thinks Jim Nantz is) when she should be happy to be Brian Hammons (or whatever the fuck his name is). If Kelly relaxed and didn't try to be the biggest dick in the booth, she'd be pretty good.

Golf nightmare comes to pass

2007-08-31T09:18:00.001-07:00

Below is the story of something I always knew would happen:

Langer's son shoots 98-91 at Dutch Open

By Golf.com Staff Report
Published: August 24, 2007

Teenage newcomer Stefan Langer of Germany, son of two-time Masters champion Bernhard Langer, improved his score Friday at the Dutch Open — but not by much.

After shooting a 98 on Thursday, Langer rebounded with a 91, finishing at 49 over par and securing last place by 28 strokes over Andrew Hastie.

In his two rounds, Langer made one birdie, nine pars, 12 bogeys, and 14 double bogeys or worse. One of the "or worse" scores was a 12 on the par-5 second hole in the first round.

His father fared much better, shooting rounds of 67-71 to finish at two under par.

That's one of those sport's nightmares that we all know could happen to us, and, honestly, there isn't an ounce of my usual schadenfreude in evidence. It's not that we'll ever face the same challenge--playing with your dad in a pro tournament and shooting close to 100--it's just that we've all needlessly felt embarrassed by similarly bad rounds, and it's sickening to watch someone else go through it. Bernhard didn't act as if he was embarrassed by his son's performance, he seemed to view it as a test of his son's character. From the online UK Mirror:

"There are two ways to react," added [Bernard] Langer. "You either stick in or put your head in the sand and give up. I don't think that's what he is made of but we will find out."

It's kind of cool to see a dad react that way, instead of seeing his son's poor scoring as a sign of weakness and using the son as an ego extension of himself. Though parents could learn something from this, there's a lesson here for all of us.

Yeah, yeah, I know--put those forged irons away

2007-08-29T04:51:00.002-07:00

I can't help myself. Call it Freud's death urge, thanatos; call it masochism; call it foolishness. Whatever you call it doesn't matter. I can't change. I have a set of forged blades. They're not right for me. They're not right for anyone. But they're in my bag. Oh, sure, I tell myself I'm using them as part of an "experiment," to see if they cost me more strokes than my Pings. To see if "forgiveness" in irons is really all it's cracked-up to be. Deep down, though, I know. It's not an experiment. It's lust. A lust for using dense chunks of forged steal to hit dimpled white rocks. A lust to feel the "swing that isn't there"--the perfect, effortless strike. It happens. Once in a while. Not enough to keep the blades in the bag. But they're there. Shrill. Unforgiving. Even pros use blades more forgiving than mine. I don't care. I am driven to use them. I know my golf partners look in my bag and think, "Huh, old blades. What's this guy thinking?" I've even had them tell me--complete strangers, mind you--to ditch them. I don't care. Like a mouse whose brain parasite compels him to throw himself into the jaws of a cat, the blades have got me. I must play with them or... I must play with them. Like a fever, this compelling desire comes and goes, but when it has me, I am its thrall. So if you see me on the courses of Los Angeles, do not mock me, and do not hate me. Pity me. Pity a fool who knows he shouldn't be using blades, but is powerless to stop himself from doing so. As I tee off, mutter a protective blessing under your breath and be thankful that you are not me. I know I would.

We're all amateurs

2007-08-27T12:25:00.000-07:00

There was a small brouhaha over at The Golfchick, regarding the play of LPGA players versus PGA players. Specifically, Golfchick was critiquing an article by John Huggan, in which he argues elite woman players don't have as good of short games as their male counterparts because women have been led to believe that success lies in a good long game (which I've argued, ad nauseum, is bass akwards) I think Huggan may have a point in regards to elite players, but in the real world, it's much different. Since I rarely play with anyone scratch or better (in fact, at a 12-handicap, I'm often the best player in my group, which, I don't need to remind you, isn't much of an accomplishment) I can only comment on players in the mid-handicap level. In this handicap range, good short games are a rarity, but when you do run into them, it's as often a woman as a man. Actually, since there are so fewer women playing on Los Angeles's muni courses, you'd probably have to give the edge, in terms of skill as a gender, to women, because for every one woman who can pitch, chip and putt, there are 10 men who can't. As far as I can tell, we amateurs are equally matched, gender notwithstanding, so if you take the few hundred pros out of the equation, the genders are a lot closer in golf than would be obvious.

Finchem/Woods Fedex Cup conspiracy?

2007-08-25T10:31:00.000-07:00

Tiger Woods decided to skip The Barclay's, the first of four legs of the Fedex Cup.

"My body is spent and I need a break... This is in no way a knock on Barclays, their new event next week or the new FedEx Cup series, which I fully support... I just hope that this extra week of rest will rejuvenate me for the final three playoff events and Presidents Cup. It is still my goal to win the FedEx Cup and I am hopeful this will give me the best opportunity to finish the year strong." [courtesy of ESPN.com]

To even a casual observer of professional golf, Woods is the prohibitive favorite in every tournament he plays in. As much fun as it is to watch him win, it doesn't usually generate much drama to watch the rest of the field battle for second place. If Woods had jumped out to an early lead in the Fedex Cup, and it became clear after two of its tournaments that he was going to win, you think anyone would tune in to watch it? I don't think the headline, "Woods in commanding lead in Fedex Cup race" is going to turn too many non-golf fans into dedicated PGA watchers. So how do you fix it? Well, you "fix" it: have Woods sit out the first tournament, let a few other pros get close to or overtake his position at the top of the points scale, then reinsert Woods into the mix and see if he can pull out a win. Now that's drama. To wit: which Woods' moment was more memorable, his 12-stroke '97 Master's win, or his battle at the '00 PGA with Bob May?

Of course, this is all pure conjecture, but really, is anyone buying Woods' "I'm too tired" spiel? If Finchem did orchestrate Woods' absence from the Barclays, it would have to go down as the smartest, most courageous strategy ever undertaken in professional golf.

Tiger Woods' survey update

2007-08-21T11:05:00.000-07:00

I'm glad to see a few of you have elected to take Woods' putting game as your own, because as Dave Pelz points out in this month's issue of Golf Magazine, putting is el numero uno factor in lowering your handicap. Number one. End of story.

Here's how Pelz broke down shot category importance. On a scale of 1-10, he rated each as follows: Driving, 3; approach shots, 5; short-game shots, 7; putting, 9. He reasons that the closer you get to the hole, the fewer chances you have to make-up for a bad shot. Think about it--the last time you hit a drive into the trees on a par-4, you were probably able to get your recovery shot somewhere near the front of the green. How many times have you hit a better shot from the center of the fairway? If you miss the green (and, statistically speaking, you usually do) you may have hit your approach pin high, but it's not close enough to make your the next pitch or chip shot any easier. In fact, on many muni courses, most of the worst threats to par live right, left, or behind the green--in front is usually the easiest to get up-and-down from. That's why, of all the shots, putting is most important because if you miss a putt, there is no chance to recover, you've cost yourself a stroke. This also explains why it drives you utterly insane when you get paired with a single who's, like, 68 years old, who can't hit it 200 yards off the tee, but gets it up-and-down from everywhere. That old guy knows you'll never beat him as long as you spend most of your time practicing your drives and get-home-in-two three woods, when you should be learning to chip, pitch and putt. The quickest and easiest way to become like Tiger is to practice your putting.

Golf's lack of self-esteem

2007-08-21T08:16:00.000-07:00

Golf needs a therapist, someone to tell it that it's okay, it's as good as other sports, and it doesn't need to chastise itself because it doesn't have a post-season.

The therapist could remind golf that it was born in Scotland hundreds of years ago, and has maintained that tradition, thank you very much, down through the centuries. It's been the sport of kings, unlike baseball, basketball, or football. At present, it's a game played recreationally by more people than any other sport. A good therapist would also point out that golf's majors are some of the most beloved sporting events in human history.

The therapist should also tell golf that the behavior of one of its allegedly best friends, Tim Finchem, actually shows him to be no friend at all. Finchem acts like there's something wrong with golf, that there's something that needs to be "fixed."
Finchem whispers into golf's ear that it needs to be more exciting, and get more people to watch it on television.
Golf thinks, "But I have four majors from spring through the end of the summer. That's a lot of exciting, world-class competition. You mean I should give MORE?"
Finchem jingles the change in his pocket.
"Listen golf, it's about more than just your traditions. We have corporate sponsors whose needs have to be considered."
"Don't we have the WGC events," golf counters, "which almost no one knows exists, let alone draws them to their t.v.s?" A forced smile breaks across Finchem's face.
"But the Fedex Cup has a $10 million payout. That's big stuff. That's what the people want." Golf scratches its chin.
"So the winner gets a check for $10 million? Well... when you put it like that, it could be exciting." Finchem's smile dissolves.
"No, not exactly. The $10 million is paid out in an annuity."
"An annuity? Like a retirement fund?"
"Yeah." Golf stops dead in its tracks.
"I suppose that's fun to watch... if you're an accountant." Finchem starts sweating.
"You're not hearing me..."
Golf puts its hand up. "If I'm hearing your correctly, you're saying there's a big winner's purse, but the payout is over many years. And you think this will get people to watch me on t.v.?"
"That's the plan."
"But won't people be disappointed when they think they're going to see a huge check handed to the winner, but instead they..." Finchem interrupts.
"No, no, no. No one is going to be disappointed. Look, I don't have time for this. I'm late for my private Fedex corporate flight." He turns to leave, catches himself and turns back. "I don't where you've gotten this new-found "independence," but I don't like it, and it's not helping. Just let me run the show and everything will be fine." Finchem heads off to a waiting limo.
"My therapist was TOTALLY right about Finchem. I can't believe I'm working with this guy," golf mutters under its breath as it walks out towards the first tee.

Golf and technology--a wonderful combination

2007-08-10T08:21:00.000-07:00

Streaming coverage of the PGA Championship is the best! Unlike the Masters, which looked like it was being streamed with a webcam, the PGA's video is as good as regular TV. Plus, there's coverage you can't get on TV--they follow marquee groups for an entire round. Yesterday it was Woods' group, today it's Mickelson's.

In a matter totally unrelated to golf, if you're a frequent web surfer you may be unaware that many companies place cookies on your computer without your knowledge or permission. Some of them are harmless, but cookies placed by advertisers often compromise your privacy by tracking your activities. If you use Firefox, there is a way to block these cookies from being loaded onto your computer. Firstly, if you want to block many scripts (like unwanted animations, audio, etc.) from loading without your permission, use NoScript. I've been using it for the last few days, and it's awesome. Then, if you want to choose which cookies to allow onto your computer, and permanently block the ones your don't, install use CookieSafe, another Firefox add-on. It lists cookies trying to load, and allows you the choice of allowing or permanently blocking it. To see how well it works, before using it, make note of how many cookies are currently installed. Then compare how many you have after using CookieSafe.

Back to golf: I'm amazed that no one in my "Take Wood's game" survey has not chosen to use take his putting skills. I'll let the survey expire before I show you some numbers that will have you, too, amazed that you didn't do it.

PGA Championship--a major in need of a hook

2007-08-07T18:47:00.000-07:00

Why are majors majors? Because each one offers a unique challenge. The U.S. Open has its rough; the British Open offers fairways as hard as concrete; the Masters has nutzo greens (and requires the players to stomach its antebellum "charm"); PGA Championship has... the weather? No? Um, could it be that all the golfers are probably really tired by this point in the year? No. It's the final major? No. The Un-Masters? No. Okay then--the PGA Championship needs a "hook," something that gets people watching. And I have the answer: monkeys. The PGA Championship could be the only major to release hungry monkeys during competitive rounds. They shouldn't use big monkeys that could threaten patrons or golfers, but small and cute monkeys that could sow mischief. The spider monkey is a good candidate. He's small enough that his bite wouldn't hurt any more than a pinch, and he's got enough personality to run away with a pro's golf ball and get much-needed cute-assed press out of it. Think of the stories sports writers would get--"Woman feeds monkey, loses earlobe," "Got lice? PGA monkeys can handle it," "It's official--all primates hail Tiger Woods as Monkey God," etc., etc. Those are narratives that grab an audience. Stimp and Bermuda just don't do it. So, PGA guys, if you want to use my idea, I'm all for it. Just do me one favor--hold back the best groomer for me.

Sabbatini and Boy--separated at birth?

2007-08-06T07:44:00.000-07:00

Arrogant, quick to overreact, and foul-tempered--that would describe both Rory Sabbatini and Boy, from "Little Monsters." In Rory's defense, he has no desire to turn his competitors into monsters by keeping them under the bed until after sunrise, but then again, he did emigrate from South Africa to Texas and couldn't be more proud to be from the Lone Star state. Eesh.

Chuck Quinton gets it, big time

2007-08-05T18:36:00.000-07:00

Below is an excerpt from the website of Chuck Quinton, One-Plane golf instructor extraordinaire. I've never been instructed on the One-Plane swing, so I can't say whether it has any value or not, but I can say that Chuck Quinton's teaching philosophy is at the center of the core of the very essence of good instruction, golf or otherwise.

This is just a taste of what Chuck has at his site, so check it out if you want to understand that you can stop searching for the ideal swing, because there is nothing to search for...

So what is the cure to the slice? What is the "secret" to hitting 300 yard drives? Sadly, because you have read this far, it means that you are still looking for that one secret tip that all good ball strikers know and you don't. You are still looking externally for answers when you had them all along. The cosmic joke of the universe is that the answers to all your questions about life, peace, happiness and a good golf swing have always been right in front of your eyes. The secret is that there is no secret. The second you stop trying to understand the golf swing at an intellectual level is the very moment in your golfing career that you open yourself up to your true golfing potential. The golf swing is much like Zen, it can't be taught, only experienced. If I tried to explain to you with words what Zen or love or happiness are, they would never suffice. There are no exact words to accurately describe how to make a proper golf swing just as there are no words to describe what love is. If you try and explain what love is to a computer it will never understand because love is not logical, but a human who has experienced love can fully comprehend what love is without any words being said. If someone were to try and "teach" a human how to love, it would never work because words cannot replace the experience. In much the same way, NO ONE can explain to you how to swing a golf club and guarantee you will "get it". There are some things that can be put into words just as there are some words that can describe happiness. But to truly understand happiness you must first experience it. So, how can anyone ever expect to learn the golf swing?

A good golf instructor is one who understands that the technical aspects of the golf swing are never the sole focus of learning, no more than a Buddhist monk would be expected to attain enlightenment by learning the details of "how to" meditate. A Zen master would act as a guide to the monk, passing along wisdom and experience, not just "technical" details. But first, the Zen master must experience enlightenment for himself, how else could he guide someone down a path that clearly cannot be explained with words alone? How can someone learn to love from someone who has never loved? In much the same way, taking lessons from a golf instructor who can't strike the ball like a master and focuses only on the technical details guarantees you one thing - that you are missing half the picture.

Rankmark good for only one golfer--the guy who owns Rankmark

2007-08-04T10:59:00.000-07:00

When I first started paying attention to all-things-golf, I stumbled upon a website called Rankmark. It's a site where clubs are "tested" for usability by golfers of differing handicaps. The site was created by Charlie Mandel, and the concept of the site was simple: have three groups of golfers from three handicap ranges (0-9, 10-20, 21+) test clubs. Then publish which clubs are best for which handicap ranges. I was sold on the site's credibility because clubs from major manufacturers as well as smaller component club companies were tested, which meant that Charlie's integrity hadn't been bought by big club companies. True, the majors' clubs usually garnered the highest ratings, but that's not controversial--they make good clubs. But then something odd began happening. Instead of rating the clubs, as he always had, in first, second and third place, Charlie started having ratings where every club tested tied for either first, second, or third place. There were no losers. It gets worse. At present, Charlie's testing involves head-to-head "match play," where clubs are paired-off and evaluated against each other, and after several rounds, a winner declared. As dubious as his testing methodology was way back when he started, his testing now is nothing more than pure entertainment. This truth is borne out by the fact that on his site's home page, he has a link (for prospective advertisers, no doubt), of site-traffic. I've got no beef with a guy who has an interest in golf and wants to make a web buck off that interest, but for Charlie to claim he's giving golfers empirical data to base a club purchase on is highly dubious.

In the end, the only golf "test" that really matters is you, the golfer, swinging the club yourself. Neither a "Hotlist" nor Rankmark can substitute for that.

There is no "clumsy" in golf?

2007-07-30T18:39:00.000-07:00

After hearing the Golf Channel commentators declare that an LPGA player had just hit a "clumsy" shot to, possibly, eliminate herself from a win, I thought: "Does golf, being the wicked bitch she is, really allow for clumsy shots?"

To be honest, we all hit "crappy" shots. Even more, those shots are expected--a 64 by some red-hot pro involves a double bogey somewhere. "Clumsy", even stupid, shots, happen all the time, even on a good round. Obviously golf is a game that derives a lot of its results from luck--otherwise, duffers would be making millions on the Tour. So, being that golf is a game that seems to derive its basis in the subconscious, and that we, the golfers, have the goal of hitting every shot dead perfect, can you really say that we're "sloppy"? I posit that we, the golfing masses, do not have an extraordinary amount of conscious control over our swings, and that the designation of "clumsy" is, in itself, clumsy. Of course, the offending commentators were Australian, and as it's been proven time and again that the best commentators come from the U.S.A. It's no surprise that Aussies provided the gaffe. And, no, I don't believe Aussies are inherently "anything," but they do have considerably less experience in big-time commentating. Give them a few more years, and "clumsy" might fall from the lexicon.

Sergio Gacia, "I just have to get better."

2007-07-27T12:13:00.000-07:00

That was Garcia's response when asked what he needs to do to win a major. It's a reasonable answer, but totally evasive. For example, the rest of us, in order to shoot better scores, can and should get better--there's plenty of room for improvement when you're scores are above 80. However, when you're at Garcia's level of play, there isn't any technique you can improve to save strokes--he can hit a 2-iron 250 yards off the fairway, for Pete's sake. No, at his level, it's all about psychology.

So, let's ask Mr. Garcia the question again. "Mr. Garcia, why didn't you win the British Open?"

Mr. Garcia, "Well, that's complicated. You see, I'm young, and I've never really thought of myself as an equal to other players. Sure, I shoot the same scores, but deep down--and this is hard for me to admit--I feel like a little kid out there with the men. So at the crucial moment, I hit a bad shot."

OR

"You've seen the outfits I where, right? Colorful, tight-fitting, gregarious. You see, I think I wear that stuff because I have to feel special, and if I don't win a major, I'm the least special of all. That added pressure--that I'm playing not only to win a tournament, but to define myself as a human being--is too much. I think I sold myself a bill of goods, and I think by losing, I'm rebelling against my own incorrect assumptions of identity."

Of course, a player doesn't have to admit that kind of stuff to the press, but he does have to admit it to himself (and probably a shrink) in order to get what he's after, i.e., a major championship.

So if any of us continually fail at something we're trying to succeed at, you have to ask the question, "Why am I really failing?"

It's the short game, stupid!

2007-07-23T16:52:00.000-07:00

Dave Pelz has said it over and over and over: it doesn't matter how well you hit full shots. Statistical analysis shows that even the best players in the world don't hit it close enough to make birdie a significant number of times. Scoring in golf all comes down to pitching, chipping and putting--especially if you want to break 80.

For those with handicaps near bogey and below, do yourself a favor: keep track of your strokes from within 30 yards over the next five times out on the course (and if you want to help me, please post your results here in comments.) What you'll learn is that most of your horrendous scores are mainly attributable to horrible short game shots. Sure, you may have a hole where you hit into an absolutely un-savable spot, but you'll see that, on the whole, it's the straight-forward short shots that give you the most trouble.

The best way to improve is to practice, and the best way to practice, that I've seen, is laid out in Dave Pelz's Short Game Bible. Though Dave assumes everyone has enough to time to practice to achieve robotic repeatability, there are many, many good short game ideas in his book.

Ballesteros retires from golf

2007-07-17T09:58:00.000-07:00

Though Seve looks a little depressed, in an odd way, it's refreshing to watch a man leave something he loves because it's time to go. We don't see this often because American society is pathologically cheery. Watch any golf broadcast (except for Johnny Miller, of course) and you'll see that when a player is playing badly, there's usually nothing more than silence from the commentators. Which is really silly, since we golfers have a lot more in common over our copious numbers of bad shots than our small number of good ones. Even when the towers fell on 9/11, we didn't have a national day of mourning, we had Bush getting fired up and promising to catch the evil-doers. We had heroic memorials for those killed, and very few moments when we just plain mourned. If Seve is bummed about leaving golf, maybe he's beginning to learn, painfully, that he's about more than golf, and he's got way more options before him than he ever imagined.

Death to the mock!

2007-07-13T07:01:00.001-07:00

Why is Tiger Woods afraid of collars? Why does he encourage a clothing style best left back in the 1960s, where is was invented? The mock was born in space, and there it should die.

I guess this comes down to a matter purely of taste--if one is in terrific physical shape, and is proud of one's body, then I suppose one has the prerogative to wear clothing to accent that physique. But isn't the following picture a little... obvious?

Sure, he's in great shape, but do you have to hit us over the head with your body? Tiger does not have to worry--we get it: you work out. Now go get a collared Sunday-red shirt for pity's sake.

The Neurotic Golfer

2007-07-12T21:12:00.001-07:00

Golf is a game our primate forebearers would have been only too happy to play. It has everything the tense primate could want--twitchy routines, long, stress-reducing walks, and the privacy to mumble to oneself at will. It's got lots of paraphernalia--tees, coins, lip balm, towels, and, of course, a bag full of clubs, which the discerning monkey can use to distract himself from whatever woes await him just outside the confines of the urban savanna. You see all kinds of people playing golf, from guys who think that with just a little more practice they could go pro, to players who not only don't know there are professional golfers, but don't have the foggiest notion how to hit a ball.

Which leads me to wonder if golf is good. Golf may be good for local economies and golf manufacturers, but are people better for having played golf? To hear Deepak Chopra tell it, the pursuit of golf is a mystical experience where a man has the opportunity to meet his "higher self." Sure. From my vantage point, with rare exception, golf is a game where most players hope to further entrench themselves in the notion that they are King and can do anything. Perhaps many golfers come to this errant conclusion because they are "somebodies" out in the non-golf world, COOs and the like, and assume that that supremacy should naturally translate to golf. Having watched countless playing partners flail at the ball, I can assure them that it doesn't. But even if they somehow managed to become a decent golfer (and there are plenty of Kings who are also good players) does that necessarily mean anything substantial about them as people? If Warren Buffet is also a +3 handicap, does that make him a better person? If Mother Theresa had been scratch, would the Catholic Church be rushing her to sainthood any faster? My guess is no and no. Of course, I'd be a complete liar if I said I didn't admit to feeling the prickly fingers of self-judgment creep up my neck as I hit a bad shot. We all want to be able to hold our heads high and say, "I can play better than most." Obviously it takes discipline to be a good player, and I don't want to belittle anyone's technical achievements, least of all my own. But discipline can bring skill to any activity and those activities aren't always good--just ask Charles Manson. No, any gratification you derive from pride-of-supremacy is foolish, and ultimately, damaging because if you fall into the trap of thinking because you're good at something you yourself are "good," then you have missed the forest for the trees. Maybe the USGA should distribute signs to courses across the country that read: "You are not golf, and golf is not you. Relax, keep up the pace, and have fun."

But if I don't hit a good tee shot off #1, all bets are off.

Repeated bad golf advice does not help

2007-07-05T21:24:00.000-07:00

Here's the latest "tip" from Golf.com:

Tip of the Day: Bounce Out of Bunkers

The trick to sticking bunker shots is to use what's built into your sand wedge

I'm not going to get into the nitty-gritty of the tip; suffice to say it tells you your "bounce" will save you from bunkers. I've seen that tip printed countless times over the years. No doubt, the flange on a sand wedge will do you some good when hitting out of a bunker provided you use the proper technique. Let's face it: a bunker shot, despite what Dave Pelz and the above dude with the outrageous comb-over tells us, is not easy. It takes practice. It takes technique. It even takes a little faith. What it does not require is the repetition, ad nauseam, of the mantra, "use the bounce, use the bounce." Plainly said, it just pisses me off when Golf Magazine, Golf Digest, or Golf Illustrated continually print tips that are worthless. What those mags do well is travel writing, Feherty musings, and golf theory, i.e., One Plane or Stack-n-Tilt, where the writer can get in-depth into the thinking of the teacher. "Use your bounce" or "The right hand for more power" do not rate highly enough to be read. So the next time you're flipping through a golf magazine, and your eyes graze over the words "trick" or "secret," keep flipping, because if you read those articles, all you're going to do is give yourself angry indigestion.

Do you suffer from putting "blindness"?

2007-07-04T08:18:00.000-07:00

After badly missing a putt, do you ever find yourself asking, "How could I have missed that?"

If you find you're missing putts from all over, even the short ones, you may be suffering from putting blindness. Symptoms include: leaving 20 foot putts 10 feet short; hitting 20 foot putts 10 feet past; missing everything on the low side; smashing 4 footers through the break leaving 6 foot come-backers; four-putting from 50 feet; silently wishing you'd never been born.

Most golfers use the standard putting grip:

The problem with using this grip is that it mimics the grip of the full swing, and for most players, the full swing is not a thing of deft touch or precise sensation. I have no idea how the subconscious works or what it actually is, but I do know it is something of a simple fool, and if it sees you using a full-swing grip on a putt, chances are your hands will go blind.

(Image courtesy of getintogolf.org)

Here are some other putter grip styles that have come into vogue in the last several years and are helpful at restoring putting sight. They are:

Above: left-hand-low, where you place your left hand below your right. The purported advantage is two-fold: a) it's easier to keep your wrists straight, and b) your shoulders are level.

Then there are the claw grip (and its derivations):

(Images courtesy of dlancgolf.com; polekatgolf.com; pgaprofessional.com.)

I like to call these grips (from left to right): The Dandy, the Bludgeon, and the Glad Hand. They work because they make your brain respond to a putt in a non-full-swing manner--your subconscious thinks, "Hey, this isn't golf. It's... uh... heck, I'm not sure. Let's just hit the dang ball." And PLOP!, you start making puts.

Here's a putting grip that requires its own grip to be installed on your putter:

(wishbonegolf.com)

The creator of this putting system claims it helps with the "yips," a mythical putting ailment that has its basis in neurology.

Lastly, if you're really having a hard time, and mere putting grip changes won't cure your ills, there is the last resort of using a longer putter.

These long putters can be expensive, but if they work for you...?

Remember, 43% of your shots are putts, and they can well determine whether you're going to play to your potential, which is, as we all know and tell ourselves every time we shoot over 90, par--or better.

Broom golf sweeping the nation

2007-06-27T16:51:00.000-07:00

I don't know where my head's been the last few months, but apparently, there's a new version of golf coming on strong.

I'm not sure how it's played, or what the objective is, but I am sure of one thing: those brooms are awesome! I've looked on eBay for a nice matched set of golf brooms--flighted, frequency matched, the whole deal--but so far all I've found is a custom broom weaving company in Slovenia. I talked with the proprietress, and after a few minutes on the phone, I knew she could hook me up with the sweetest set of brooms. This lady knows her stuff. I faxed her my Ping color code measurements and she said that after three more fittings, she'd send me my new sticks. Her brooms are used all over the world, but her reputation was only solidified after Rudy Takanaga (pictured below)

won the 154th Annual Sweepers Federation Championship. Rudy, you are a true champion! So, I'll be donating my golf clubs to Orange County Flightless Bird Association, and begin my quest for mastery of broom golf. See you on the pitch.

[Images courtesy of: Aga.edu.au; golfhound.com; golf.com; orangecow.org; friedmanarchives.com]

"How to break 80" is not as simple as it looks

2007-06-21T09:47:00.000-07:00

In a previous post I brought to light the theories of Dr. Lucius Riccio on how to break 80. To recap, the theory is: the more greens hit in regulation, the lower your score. Through his Pelzesque statistical analysis of all golfers, he determined that the minimum greens hit required to break 80 is 8. Here is Riccio's greens-hit-to-score chart:

Riccio also admits to the importance of putting. Like GIRs, there are a maximum number of allowable putts to make if 80 is to be broken, thusly:

Lastly, Riccio puts the two charts together to show the maximum number of putts allowable to break 80 if you hit over or under the required number of greens:

So, if you can hit 13 greens, you aren't required to putt any better than your average squirrel. However, if you hit only 4 greens, you'll have to putt better than the best PGA pro.

All these numbers would lead one to believe that approach shots are all important to breaking 80, which is true--if you can't hit the green from 160 yards and closer, you're going to have a long day. But what the numbers are actually saying is that playing very conservatively is what matters. For instance, on a 400 yard hole, what good is a 300 yard drive if it's in the trees without a look at the green? According to Riccio's analysis, you'd be better served to hit a 240 3-wood into the middle of the fairway and take your shot from there. Each hole will require a different conservative plan, which might go as far to play the long par-4s--blasphemy!--as bogey holes, and leave your 8 GIRs to easier holes. This all goes back to Dave Pelz's "Short Game Bible" conclusions, which is that the best scoring players are the best wedgers--at the professional level. What Pelz doesn't consider is that at the amateur level, say, 15 handicap and below, it can't be assumed a player's full-swing shots are going to have the standard 8% accuracy variation. With me and the guys I play with, our tee shots hit the intended target about 50% of the time, which is a serious fly in the Pelz ointment.

Riccio and Pelz are both correct, but what they don't say is just as important for good golf.

A prayer before swinging

2007-06-18T21:05:00.000-07:00

From what I've heard, God is huge. He's, like, the biggest thing ever.

Sports, on the other hand, are relatively small. If my team made it to the championship and I had a sick family member at home who needed me, my team would just have to play without me. Which is why I can't understand when athletes pray before participating in their sports events. At the recent U.S. Open (best ever, by the way) the NBC golfcasters noted that before a tee shot, Aaron Baddeley was seen with his eyes closed. I thought he was visualizing a shot, but the commentators said he was praying. What could he have been saying to God? Make me win? Let me play with grace? To not be injured? World peace?

Or do these praying athletes know something that non-prayers don't? Does God answer sports-related queries? With what God has on his to-do list--helping me with my Lotto picks, preventing contrails, keeping the Blimp aloft--I certainly hope he doesn't.

On the other hand, if He is answering, then I'd like to make a request: Would You allow me play as good as I think I am?

Golf Magazine don't do sexy too well

2007-06-16T12:01:00.000-07:00

Athletes can be sexy. But not necessarily. Case in point: Amanda Beard, swimmer--

sexy.

John Daly,

not sexy.

Pro golfers, male and female, have great talent first, and media marketability second. In fact, it's the odd handsome dude or dudette that gets all the attention, hence the media oversaturation of Gulbis.

Ms. Gulbis obviously hopes she can up her stock by showing a little skin. Aesthetic value of the photo aside (just out of the frame, Siegfried is screaming that her rental time is up and that, "I need my stage back to train zee tigers!") she takes her image seriously.

So why do the photos that Golf Magazine included in their June 13 issue "Sexiest Women Golfers" spread look like they were taken by the golfers' spouse/boyfriend/sister/eldest child/goth gal-pal?

None of these women are unattractive, and I'm sure with a professional make-up artist and glamor photog, they could all look perfectly presentable. But really--these are the best the magazine could do?

Golf transcendence

2007-06-12T09:49:00.001-07:00

The only word that comes to mind when viewing this pic is "immaculate." Is golf a game or a religion?

My favorite golf score: 8!

2007-06-10T09:15:00.000-07:00

Good golf is boring. For instance, the story of a birdie usually goes like this:
"Hit a drive down the right. Wedged it over a bunker to ten feet. Played the putt a cup right, dropped it dying in the hole."

Neat, tidy, and not much of a yarn.

An 8, however, has so much more to tell us. And it doesn't matter on what hole the score was made--par 3, 4, 5--each one will offer up an interesting tale. For instance, my most recent 8, on a par 5, went like this:

Popped my driver just enough to to hit the itty-bitty tip of an overhanging branch just off the tee. Deflected my ball behind and to the right over the twenty-foot high fence guarding the adjacent green. Found my ball near a green-side bunker. Had to hit a low punch which should run at least 100 yards, but instead punched dead-on into the trunk of a pine tree. Back at my feet. Hit the punch again, rolls 75 yards. Slightly hot under the collar, I find my ball on a steep incline, and for some stupid reason, still use my punching 3 iron because now I'm going to teach the ball a lesson. Pop it up another 75 yards. As I walk to the ball, all the while slamming my 3 iron into the soft earth, I picture the ways in which I will crush, eviscerate, dice, obliterate, and nuclearly incinerate my small, defenseless, little white friend. Wanting now only to punish the ball, I take out a 5 wood and, with a very angry swing, pop it up again. 75 yards later, I take out my 7 wood, and despite my anger, hit it just short of the green. Not wanting to cast an angry pall over my playing partners, who have respected my 50 foot bubble of horrible-golf privacy (no one, not even myself, finds it comfortable to play with angry Homer) I joke about how "bizarro" that was. A chip and putt later, all my anger goes poof! Onto the next hole.

See, wasn't that a lot more fun than saying, "Drive, lay-up, pitch, putt, birdie"? Plus, there's something vaguely boring about scratch golfers, as if they've decided to let their clubs do the talking for them, and the only interesting comment they can offer over the 5 1/2 hours of a round are something like, "That's a nice little fade you have there." Another benefit of the 8 was learning that a horrible score doesn't have to ruin the whole round--regrouping is possible!

So if anyone has a great story to tell surrounding a 8 (and I'd really like to hear from someone who earned that on a par 3) please, share!

e21, anyone?

2007-06-07T17:44:00.000-07:00

I found a golf club/shaft company that claims it will--yawn--revolutionize the game. Apparently they have created a "spaced-aged" alloy with qualities like, "25% lighter, 50% stronger than steel..." I knew there was more at work here than just a bunch of metallurgists with too much time on their hands. I checked out the company profile on their website. They have couple of videos of company principals being confident and forward looking as they describe the power of their discovery. But it wasn't until I watched the chief scientist explain the development of scandium, the revolutionary metal in their heads and shafts, that I realized that my suspicions had been justified all along: she was RUSSIAN. This metal was developed for use in MiGs, and SU aircraft. I've seen a MiG, and I don't think it has my best golf interests in mind.

It eased my fears somewhat to learn that a lot of club fitters here in the U.S. offer e21 stuff in their fitting programs. But it still amazes me to know that there are still people out there, even Russians, who are willing to make the claim that golf can be revolutionized. I get that a new putter design can turn a few heads, and not since the introduction of titanium has golf undergone a true revolution. But an alloy? Anyone remember Liquid Metal? Me neither.

But, I have made the public commitment to better my game and if e21 can help me do that (and I'm sure these shafts are ungodly expensive) then they might just play a part in it.

Nicklaus thinks Ryder Cup should be worldwide

2007-06-06T10:18:00.000-07:00

Finally! Jack Nicklaus has made the argument that the Ryder Cup should be expanded beyond its U.S. vs. Europe scheme. This is a completely fair and long overdue remedy.

The U.S. dominated the matches when they were played against an opposing team comprised of only U.K. players. When the U.K. team was expanded in 1979 to include all of Europe, it was just a few years before the Euros started dominating us.

Ever since that European expansion, the U.S. has struggled, winning only 6 of the 14 Cups (and if you consider the first and second Euro teams as "expansion" teams, then our record is even worse.)

Clearly the balance, and talent, has tipped in the Europeans' favor, and so, as Jack says:

"We keep playing the United States against the rest of the world," said Nicklaus, the captain of the U.S. team in the Presidents Cup, which takes on an international team in September. "Maybe we ought to play East versus West."

"We ought to divide this up a little differently, maybe the Americas (North and South) as a team because it's going to continue to go that way as the game grows internationally," he said. "That's not to say we're not going to have good golfers in the United States, but we're going to have good golfers everywhere else in the world and that's great for the game. I think you're going to continue to see that trend in the game."
(Quote courtesy of golf.com)

It has always confused me that we consider the Ryder Cup the definitive professional match-play event, when many of the world's best players--Els, Sighn, Appleby, and Choi, to name but a few--are excluded.

The other (and unintended) benefit of expanding the Ryder Cup would be it would obviate the need for the President's Cup, which is, let's face it, about as prestigious as two rats fucking in the sewer.

So come on PGA Tour: do something to make the Ryder Cup competitive again.

Tell me a little about yourself

2007-06-03T23:02:00.000-07:00

As I mentioned earlier, I am going to embark upon a journey of personal exploration, by way of golf instruction. During my due diligence into finding an instructor, I found a guy in Texas who prepares his students by telling them to be patient--rebuilding a swing should take around two years. He also doesn't believe a student should see his instructor every week. The student should only take a lesson after he's mastered the previous lesson's instruction, which usually works out to be about a month. So, that means twenty to twenty-five lessons are required to get your game into the shape it deserves to be. Obviously I believe myself to be better than average, and therefore it isn't going to take two years for me to learn a swing. My attitude isn't born of naivety but by super-duper naivety on a level not often seen on planter earth.

However, I am not here to talk about myself, but about you--or rather, for you to talk to yourself. I'm interested to hear any stories you might have about golf lessons, or guitar lessons, yoga instruction, or any kind of learning you've undertaken and how you found that experience to be. For instance: did you have a horrible teacher that made you look for a better teacher? Were you permanently damaged by your first golf instructor, so much so that you never want lessons ever again? I'd love to hear any stories you might have and will post them on der blog.

This week I am going to contact my first prospective instructor and see how it goes. With a little luck, he (or she) will set me on my way to truly understanding the importance of supination.

Furrows redux

2007-05-30T06:33:00.000-07:00

It's time for Jack Nicklaus's Memorial Tournament, which also means the furrows are back.

In 2006, the furrows contributed to a drop in sand saves from 49.1% to 43.8% (stats courtesy of A Walk in the Park).

However, it seems Nicklaus didn't want to incur the same ire from players this year as he did last, so, "....[Nicklaus's] intent was to restore the penalty of hitting into a bunker... some players said the size of the furrows took skill out of the sand shot.

"This year, we're consistent with the size, and we really don't think the players are going to find it to be a big hazard," Nicklaus said. "It puts a little ripple in the sand. Can you get a bad lie? Yeah. You'll be pretty hard-pressed, though."

Nicklaus gave them a test over the weekend, hitting six bunker shots.

"One was a long bunker shot, and other five I hit within a foot," he said. "I said, 'Well, if I can do that, I think it's going to be pretty easy for those guys.' I don't think that will be an issue this year, frankly."

The buzz word for the bunkers is called "rough raking," perhaps to get the word "furrow" out of the vocabulary this week. But if the penalty won't be severe, why use any special rake at all?"

(Quote courtesy of PGA.com)

So it would seem that in 2006, the furrows had their intended effect. In fact, Carl Pettersson, last year's winner, hit into only one bunker all week.

Why is Jack backing down and using smaller furrows?

This is, after all, Jack, and if Jack wants to loose Bengal tigers on the course during tournament play (obviously he'd spare the pro-am) most players would be happy to accept the danger for their chance to win Jack's tournament.

It probably has to do with the fact that Jack, as a golfer and pillar of the community, is not a rebel, and probably, above all else, now that he's retired, needs to be liked by those he respects most--the players in his tournament. His legacy is his 18 majors, not his furrows. So if using shortened teeth in his rakes nets him a few more, "Thanks, Mr. Nicklaus--your tournament's the best," from the likes of, say, Tiger Woods, then he's probably only too happy to oblige.

So THAT'S how you hit that neat pitch!

2007-05-28T06:50:00.000-07:00

Found this article on golf.com, (text below) and it lays how to hit those zippy one-skip-and-bite pitches. The more I play, the more a I realize that I need to perfect this shot--you can't always count on dropping a 35% lob shot down near the pin; plus, it's just so damn cool.

The one-hop-and-stop pitch

How to play the stop-it-on-a-dime shot that's cooler than Fonzie.

By Brian Crowell
Published: January 01, 2006

If you want to be cooler than the other side of the pillow, you gotta have the one-hop-and-stop shot. You've seen the pros do it: From about 25 yards out, they pick the ball off the turf so it bounces once on the green and then puts on the brakes right by the hole. It's cool and it leaves an easy tap-in.

• You'll need a clean lie in the fairway and your sand wedge.

• Play the ball one inch back of center in your stance with your clubface square to the target. Your hands should be slightly in front of the ball [left].

• Apply a little extra grip pressure with the last three fingers of your left hand. This will come in handy in just a moment.

Angus Murray

Knee high follow-through

• Keep your weight centered throughout your swing. Take the club back to waist height and then accelerate down through the ball.

• Kick your right knee toward the target as you reach impact. This will get you moving onto your left foot and ensure ball-first contact.

• Don't release the club. Instead, maintain that little extra grip pressure and you'll keep the club pointing at the target.

• Follow through to knee height, and rotate your body and hands around to your left.

Brian Crowell is head golf professional at Leewood Golf Club in Eastchester, N.Y.

Wounded Duck update 6/10/07: Have tried this shot several times and have yet to get the desired effect. Easy to pull left and look like a dufus. I think I got to spin once, but ball spun down a knob further from hole, need tv cameras to cover me as I play for better post-round analysis.

If it ain't broke...

2007-05-26T14:07:00.000-07:00

Remember these?

These are the crappy clubs I mention in an earlier post with the wild-and-crazy idea that I would play them, expressing the quaint notion that, with their whippy, 40-year-old shafts, it's the swing, not the stick. Well, was I ever WRONG! Sure, I could hit them, but only after making swing adjustments that I just know will have put me out of sync with my current gear. Every iron shot was pulled, and the driver... I don't even want to talk about the driver. So, having learned the hard way that technology is my friend, I shall not ever abandon it again.

However, my foray into the unplayability of older clubs has led me to wonder if the idiosyncratic swings of older pros--Trevino, Palmer, even Nicklaus--weren't a result of the crude shafts which were available when they learned the game. Conversely, could the cookie cutter pro swings--so named and criticized by Hal Sutton in a Golf Magazine article--be a result of the consistent quality of golf equipment in the modern era? I have neither the billions of dollars nor the top-notch research team to put that question to the scientific test, but the golf swing has adapted as technology changed: hickory to steel, steel to graphite, etc. Who knows--if we're all playing the same shafts, maybe our swings should look similar, too.

Custom fitting--Or How I Should Stop Worrying and Love To Bomb.

2007-05-23T06:08:00.000-07:00

A few times a year I learn of a new product or service that makes me wonder, "If I [bought product or hired service] would my game really be taken to new heights?" Well, this thrice-monthly's obsession is brought to you by Doctor Grip. He's Dave Butler, a club fitter in Northern California who runs his shop out of a green trailer (aptly named the Butler Cabin) next to a small driving range. His website is chock-full of cool info, but here's one tidbit I found particularly enlightening:

Drivers "Basically the Same"

Is there that much difference between one driver and another? Absolutely, but for a different reason than you might imagine.

David Butler performed a test, recently, to determine which of fifteen name-brand drivers hit a golf ball the ball farthest. He fitted a low handicap player to an optimum shaft, and then had him try all the club heads. He found virtually no difference from one to the next. It was all about the shafts.

Based on that study, your choice of drivers becomes a matter of personal preference. A player should choose his big stick based on how it looks, sets up, feels through the swing, and sounds at impact.

In David Butler's fitting center, you too, can duplicate that test and apply it to your game. David will determine the proper shaft based on objective scientific factors, and then plug that shaft into quality, proven drivers. You decide which of them most appeals to you.

So now that you reach the fairways more often, how about hitting it stiff to the greens?

Pretty amazing, huh? Good to know, considering that I payed $125 for my used Cobra SS 427 cc driver, and new drivers typically go for $500. Most drivers will last for 10,000 ball strikes, so a trade up is not necessarily required.

In his fitting, he uses only two models of shafts for irons, and one for woods. His iron shafts are True Temper, and they're shafts that TT only offers through custom club fitters. He says the wood shafts, the Diamana from Mistubishi Rayon, are a "little more expensive," so I looked them up online and found them for $275. I can only imagine the iron shafts are similarly pricey. By no means am I implying I'm not worth a $275 shaft--if I had the money I'd have no problem whatsoever in spending it--but my game had better be in tip-top shape before I fork out that kind of dough. Which brings me to my next question...

Club fitters are always claiming that properly fitted clubs can make a huge difference in your game, while teaching pros claim it's the swing; manufacturers claim a high MOI is the secret. Taken together, these add up to a thoroughly confusing dilemma. I guess the only way to resolve the conflict is to actually try all three. So, over the next year, I am going to try all three. Southern California has some of the best golf teachers in the biz, and I'm inclined to hire someone from the Brady Riggs camp--he's an instructor who's been featured in the big golf mags a few times (but--yikes--is $25o an hour) but has a few proteges who are affordable, and who sound solid. Then, after the lesson phase is well under way, I'll decide who my club fitter will be. Could be Doctor Grip, or Max Out Golf, here in Socal. Then, and only then, and only on recommendation of either the fitter or the teacher, will I consider trading my venerable Ping Zings for newer clubs (although Doctor Grip says that forged clubs, due to their higher density, will hit balls farther than cast, and as you all know, Ping is the King of Casting.)

As my Year in Golf progresses, I'll post updates to let you know how things are going.

Flight to Ohio: $500. Greens fees: $35. Playing with a set of clubs that cost you $8: priceless.

2007-05-17T18:42:00.000-07:00

I'm out of town, visiting my clan in our ancestral homeland, better known as Northeastern Ohio, and, of course, it's Spring here, so golf is in season. I didn't dare schlep my clubs all the way from the City of Bulimic Angels, so I went shopping at a quality golf retail outlet. Here are some pics of my new acquisitions:

(The retail outlet is Salvation Army.) The grips are leather circa Eisenhower. I took them to a driving range, made my way amongst the guys playing with new shiny, grain-flow forged, titanium clubs and let 'er rip. I would guess they play nearly two clubs less than modern clubs (because of increased lofts and reduced shaft length) and the shafts were super-soft, which caused a fierce-some draw on every shot. With the driver, as long as you hit up on the ball like every pro says you should, you can get 200+ yards out of it. There's only one thing left for me to do: buy a worm-eaten bag for another $5, and hit the links.

And I'm not taking the price stickers off.

Putting, putts, putted, putt

2007-05-16T09:06:00.000-07:00

This is sort of a companion piece to my posting about greens-in-regulation (about half down the posting) because how many putts you make is related to how many greens you hit. On the awesome website Puttingzone, Geoff Mangum has a primer on how to understand putting stats. Below are the nuts-and-bolts of his analysis (which cites 2000-PGA season stats):

What the Number Means. The lowest number in this set of years is Brad Faxon's 1.704 (2000). That year he took 1897 putts on 1113 greens he had reached in regulation (1897/1113=1.704). The easiest way to think about these numbers when comparing two players is to assume each player hit an even 1000 greens. That way, Brad Faxon's 1.704 (rank=1) compares to Kelly Gibson's 1.841 (rank=195) as 1704 putts versus 1841 putts. In other words, over the course of the whole season Faxon's putting is worth 137 fewer strokes than the worst putter in that year's stats. This is the range for that year. Faxon played 96 rounds that season, while Gibson played only 82, so the numbers do not tell us Faxon had 137 fewer putts that year than Gibson -- only that if Player A and Player B both played the same number of rounds and each hit the same number of greens in regulation, Player A with 1.704 putting would have 137 fewer strokes than Player B with 1.841 putting.

In addition, assuming no 3-putt+ greens, if a player 2-putted every green he reached in regulation, his stat would be 2.000. If he 1-putted every green he reached in regulation, his stat would be 1.000. If he 1-putted HALF (50%) of the greens he hit in regulation, his stat would be 1.500. If he 1-putted a QUARTER of the greens he reached in regulation, his stat would be 1.750. THIS TELLS YOU THE PERCENT OF GIRs THE PLAYER ONE-PUTTS! The simple formula is 2 minus the stat. For Kelly Gibson's 1.841 stat, the number tells us he 1-putted 2 - 1.841 = .159, or 15.9% of his greens. In contrast, Brad Faxon's 1.704 tells us he 1-putted 2 - 1.704 = .296, or 29.6% of his greens.

In 2006, the PGA's best putter was Daniel Chopra, with a whopping 1.712, meaning he one-putted 28.8% of greens. No wonder he's a pro! Of course, this isn't the whole picture of his game, because putting stats don't take into account missed greens, but still, when Chopra does hit a GIR, he's got a 1-in-3 chance to make his first putt. From an amateur's standpoint, that would make the game a whole lot funner.

Puttingzone has tons of info from Geoff's research and teaching techniques, and he even delves into psychology, which is one part of the game that the venerable Dave Pelz, short-game genius that he is, steers well clear of. Pelz did publish a book on putting, but regardless of whether you use him or Mangum, better putting can make you a markedly better player.

Off the beaten path.

2007-05-15T19:46:00.000-07:00

Once in a while, finding something on a lark turns out to be better than you expected...

I often find myself rummaging through the bargain club bins at various golf retailers, but unquestionably, my favorite is Roger Dunn. Their store in Santa Ana is staggeringly huge, and their used club selection is equally impressive. The bins are so full of clubs, they look like freshly harvested wheat spilling over the rim, demanding to be luxuriantly grasped. During one foray, I came upon this:

It was sitting in the $20 bin with a bunch of other tired, sad, Island-of-Misfit-Toys candidates. It's a strange little fairway wood manufactured by tennis powerhouse Prince. It has a proprietary shaft, impossible to replace grip (I lie: you can call Prince and get them for $5 each), and, most importantly, it worked great. I took it home and have never been able to find its equal. However, since it's a great club and more of good thing must be better, I tried to locate it's siblings in varying lofts, but, alas, could not find them, new or used. Then one day I came upon The Golf Shack , and found the clubs I was looking for--new--for $20 (marked down from their original price of $150.) Feeling like I had found a Jackson Pollack at a garage sale, I gobbled them up, and have been happy to have them ever since. I've never seen another player using them, and have never seen them in a used bin ever again. I guess this goes to show you that life, even in golf, is fleeting, and you'd better grab your chances when they present themselves or you might not ever see them again.

Tomorrow: Desire for my long-lost Quad-Pro.

Par on the PGA Tour

2007-05-10T08:28:00.000-07:00

Ever wonder how well you would do if you shot par every week on the PGA Tour? I looked at a few tournaments from this season and crunched the numbers. On average, when the winning score is between 15-20 under par, those who shot even made around $12,500 (in some tournaments shooting par was much more of an accomplishment due to the higher winning score, so I threw those results out.) So if your average player--let's call him Troy Atkinson--participated in 30 events, excepting the Majors and the elite invitationals (Mercedes, TPC, etc.), shooting par would net him $375,000 at season's end. In 2006, this would have put him in 168th place on the money list, which is not good enough to garner playing privileges for the next year, though it does offer Troy some provisional status. Of course, the pattern for most players is one of hot/cold: one week they miss the cut, then the next week they make a cut and place high enough to earn $50,000. Hopefully, they can do this enough times to total the $495,314 needed to place 150th or better on the tour money list (in 2006) and have full playing privileges. Wow--these guys really are good.

(Stats from PGATour.com)

PGA TOUR

2006 Money Leaders
Complete Through THE TOUR Championship - November 05, 2006

RANK	NAME	EARNINGS	EVENTS	WINS
1	Tiger Woods	$9,941,563	15	8
2	Jim Furyk	$7,213,316	24	2
3	Adam Scott	$4,978,858	19	1
4	Vijay Singh	$4,602,417	27	1
5	Geoff Ogilvy	$4,354,970	20	2
6	Phil Mickelson	$4,256,506	19	2
7	Trevor Immelman	$3,844,190	24	1
8	Stuart Appleby	$3,470,459	23	2
9	Luke Donald	$3,177,410	18	1
10	Brett Wetterich	$3,023,185	25	1
11	David Toms	$2,911,187	22	1
12	Rory Sabbatini	$2,861,750	24	1
13	Joe Durant	$2,811,139	28	1
14	Chad Campbell	$2,811,066	25	1
15	Stewart Cink	$2,755,910	26	0
16	Davis Love III	$2,747,207	23	1
17	Rod Pampling	$2,664,674	24	1
18	Carl Pettersson	$2,647,983	28	1
19	Retief Goosen	$2,617,453	18	0
20	Brett Quigley	$2,617,420	33	0
21	Lucas Glover	$2,587,983	31	0
22	Dean Wilson	$2,509,859	34	1
23	Arron Oberholser	$2,467,771	23	1
24	Zach Johnson	$2,452,252	27	0
25	Tom Pernice, Jr.	$2,396,548	33	0
26	Stephen Ames	$2,395,155	21	1
27	K.J. Choi	$2,376,549	26	1
28	Ernie Els	$2,326,220	18	0
29	J.J. Henry	$2,301,480	28	1
30	Ben Curtis	$2,256,327	26	2
31	Jose Maria Olazabal	$2,120,423	18	0
32	Tim Clark	$1,974,933	22	0
33	Mike Weir	$1,883,725	24	0
34	Steve Stricker	$1,811,812	17	0
35	Vaughn Taylor	$1,783,946	26	0
36	Troy Matteson	$1,778,597	32	1
37	Tim Herron	$1,776,143	27	1
38	Camilo Villegas	$1,742,112	29	0
39	Jerry Kelly	$1,737,800	31	0
40	Scott Verplank	$1,729,319	25	0
41	Nathan Green	$1,700,802	30	0
42	Tom Lehman	$1,692,083	20	0
43	Jason Bohn	$1,676,892	29	0
44	Frank Lickliter	$1,655,679	29	0
45	John Senden	$1,650,674	28	1
46	Shaun Micheel	$1,632,842	29	0
47	Justin Rose	$1,629,288	28	0
48	Fred Funk	$1,579,839	29	0
49	Sergio Garcia	$1,560,734	17	0
50	Richard S. Johnson	$1,555,376	29	0
51	Ian Poulter	$1,553,906	15	0
52	Charles Howell III	$1,553,104	30	0
53	Chris DiMarco	$1,537,925	26	0
54	Daniel Chopra	$1,530,454	33	0
55	Aaron Baddeley	$1,516,513	25	1
56	Robert Allenby	$1,503,581	22	0
57	John Rollins	$1,498,829	28	1
58	Ben Crane	$1,489,093	26	0
59	J.B. Holmes	$1,487,603	26	1
60	Jeff Maggert	$1,430,375	26	1
61	Steve Flesch	$1,417,617	33	0
62	Sean O'Hair	$1,411,388	30	0
63	Jonathan Byrd	$1,408,339	20	0
64	Bo Van Pelt	$1,389,928	28	0
65	Billy Mayfair	$1,367,999	29	0
66	Chris Couch	$1,356,732	27	1
67	Bob Estes	$1,340,244	25	0
68	Padraig Harrington	$1,339,676	15	0
69	Greg Owen	$1,316,684	24	0
70	Bart Bryant	$1,316,132	26	0
71	Jesper Parnevik	$1,308,309	24	0
72	Corey Pavin	$1,308,084	23	1
73	Eric Axley	$1,274,581	29	1
74	Jeff Sluman	$1,252,024	29	0
75	Nick Watney	$1,243,816	29	0
76	Ted Purdy	$1,216,429	33	0
77	Heath Slocum	$1,180,681	30	0
78	Woody Austin	$1,179,321	31	0
79	Shigeki Maruyama	$1,154,115	30	0
80	Steve Lowery	$1,124,949	31	0
81	Ryan Moore	$1,122,118	22	0
82	Charley Hoffman	$1,115,193	29	0
83	Hunter Mahan	$1,107,457	29	0
84	Ryan Palmer	$1,092,853	30	0
85	Mathew Goggin	$1,076,141	26	0
86	Joe Ogilvie	$1,073,112	29	0
87	Billy Andrade	$1,057,927	24	0
88	Brian Gay	$1,037,601	31	0
89	D.J. Trahan	$1,035,242	33	1
90	Bubba Watson	$1,019,263	27	0
91	Charles Warren	$1,018,840	27	0
92	Ryuji Imada	$1,018,139	31	0
93	Craig Barlow	$1,006,538	22	0
94	Nick O'Hern	$995,236	15	0
95	Daisuke Maruyama	$956,925	25	0
96	David Howell	$912,437	14	0
97	Paul Goydos	$890,392	24	0
98	Harrison Frazar	$889,022	29	0
99	Bill Haas	$887,024	30	0
100	Will Mackenzie	$879,966	29	1
101	Kent Jones	$860,688	32	0
102	Briny Baird	$844,549	25	0
103	Peter Lonard	$837,017	22	0
104	Kenny Perry	$818,698	22	0
105	Joey Sindelar	$802,507	29	0
106	Brandt Jobe	$802,435	28	0
107	Jeff Gove	$793,477	29	0
108	Fredrik Jacobson	$788,764	18	0
109	Justin Leonard	$781,756	26	0
110	Fred Couples	$780,361	17	0
111	Kirk Triplett	$766,594	18	1
112	Dudley Hart	$762,736	29	0
113	Brian Davis	$762,282	28	0
114	Olin Browne	$754,063	30	0
115	Kevin Sutherland	$751,626	29	0
116	Stephen Leaney	$746,747	27	0
117	Pat Perez	$719,507	19	0
118	Jason Gore	$717,003	29	0
119	David Branshaw	$706,346	29	0
120	Mark Calcavecchia	$705,316	27	0
121	Paul Azinger	$702,089	30	0
122	J.P. Hayes	$701,433	19	0
123	Shane Bertsch	$697,060	34	0
124	Mathias Gronberg	$674,003	30	0
125	Darren Clarke	$660,898	10	0
126	Rich Beem	$658,224	27	0
127	Bubba Dickerson	$650,315	32	0
128	Brian Bateman	$645,152	26	0
129	John Cook	$644,505	20	0
130	Lee Westwood	$630,566	14	0
131	Duffy Waldorf	$625,514	28	0
132	Tim Petrovic	$601,928	30	0
133	Brent Geiberger	$590,479	30	0
134	Omar Uresti	$583,704	22	0
135	Jonathan Kaye	$578,714	32	0
136	Jeffrey Overton	$577,131	28	0
137	Jerry Smith	$568,213	29	0
138	Bernhard Langer	$561,512	24	0
139	Jeff Brehaut	$558,595	33	0
140	Arjun Atwal	$550,537	33	0
141	Bob May	$548,631	21	0
142	Marco Dawson	$545,076	27	0
143	Brad Faxon	$543,681	26	0
144	Robert Garrigus	$537,594	28	0
145	Alex Cejka	$525,484	30	0
146	Lee Janzen	$524,198	28	0
147	Jose Coceres	$522,592	13	0
148	Kris Cox	$517,836	28	0
149	Tag Ridings	$498,242	33	0
150	Chris Riley	$495,314	27	0
151	Robert Gamez	$493,640	30	0
152	Henrik Bjornstad	$490,963	31	0
153	Michael Allen	$470,945	25	0
154	Carlos Franco	$454,385	29	0
155	Robert Damron	$451,300	31	0
156	Mark Wilson	$444,317	24	0
157	Skip Kendall	$439,934	22	0
158	J.L. Lewis	$438,669	17	0
159	John Huston	$431,024	27	0
160	David McKenzie	$425,229	28	0
161	Wes Short	$422,506	33	0
162	D.A. Points	$405,984	28	0
163	Todd Fischer	$395,819	35	0
164	Doug Barron	$388,226	28	0
165	Patrick Sheehan	$386,718	34	0
166	Danny Ellis	$382,501	23	0
167	Scott Gutschewski	$379,488	19	0
168	Ian Leggatt	$377,904	29	0
169	Graeme McDowell	$357,902	15	0
170	Tommy Armour III	$352,446	25	0
171	Paul Stankowski	$319,597	22	0
172	David Duval	$318,276	24	0
173	Steve Jones	$308,360	27	0
174	Ron Whittaker	$300,033	28	0
175	Bob Tway	$299,725	25	0
176	Cameron Beckman	$288,427	16	0
177	Craig Parry	$283,282	15	0
178	Jay Delsing	$276,447	14	0
179	Greg Kraft	$273,735	26	0
180	Nicholas Thompson	$264,717	32	0
181	Steve Elkington	$255,196	17	0
182	B.J. Staten	$253,089	18	0
183	Mark Hensby	$251,883	16	0
184	Gabriel Hjertstedt	$251,235	16	0
185	Tjaart van der Walt	$234,918	21	0
186	John Riegger	$230,765	20	0
187	James Driscoll	$219,904	29	0
188	Larry Mize	$217,971	18	0
189	Nick Price	$208,938	16	0
190	Mark Brooks	$207,958	36	0
191	Vance Veazey	$207,077	20	0
192	Mark O'Meara	$203,668	18	0
193	John Daly	$192,134	21	0
194	Matt Hansen	$187,253	25	0
195	Chris Smith	$183,411	21	0
196	Scott McCarron	$175,727	15	0
197	Dicky Pride	$174,674	9	0
198	Todd Hamilton	$165,072	27	0
199	Jay Haas	$163,399	7	0
200	Thomas Levet	$163,110	19	0
201	Darron Stiles	$157,558	15	0
202	Jimmy Walker	$153,950	21	0
203	Greg Chalmers	$151,266	28	0
204	Jason Schultz	$147,424	28	0
205	Kevin Na	$146,099	11	0
206	Rocco Mediate	$145,820	18	0
207	Glen Day	$134,580	12	0
208	Loren Roberts	$134,571	4	0
209	Mike Sposa	$132,131	25	0
210	Bill Glasson	$127,932	17	0
211	Dan Forsman	$117,126	15	0
212	Roger Tambellini	$116,685	25	0
213	Notah Begay III	$116,034	12	0
214	Matt Gogel	$108,230	14	0
215	Tom Byrum	$101,094	11	0
216	Michael Connell	$97,771	22	0
217	Grant Waite	$96,950	8	0
218	Brian Henninger	$96,453	12	0
219	Alex Aragon	$94,504	26	0
220	Ryan Hietala	$87,772	23	0
221	Jay Williamson	$86,150	18	0
222	John Engler, Jr.	$72,694	27	0
223	Scott Gump	$72,248	10	0
224	Hidemichi Tanaka	$69,435	31	0
225	Brendan Jones	$68,760	9	0
226	Len Mattiace	$66,540	22	0
227	Jon Mills	$65,493	27	0
228	Garrett Willis	$60,541	10	0
229	David Frost	$56,960	7	0
230	Phil Tataurangi	$55,792	20	0
231	Neal Lancaster	$54,680	19	0
232	Andrew Magee	$52,711	19	0
233	Donnie Hammond	$52,693	11	0
234	Bob Burns	$49,170	9	0
235	Peter Jacobsen	$46,256	4	0
236	Michael Bradley	$41,790	6	0
237	Gary Hallberg	$35,693	4	0
238	Gavin Coles	$34,674	5	0
239	Blaine McCallister	$32,190	10	0
240	Ben Crenshaw	$32,060	2	0
241	Matt Kuchar	$30,297	8	0
242	Willie Wood	$27,774	11	0
243	Jim McGovern	$26,070	8	0
244	Hank Kuehne	$24,677	9	0
245	Tom Watson	$21,578	2	0
246	Boyd Summerhays	$20,794	13	0
247	Spike McRoy	$18,225	9	0
248	James H. McLean	$16,760	4	0
249	David Edwards	$16,364	3	0
250	Craig Stadler	$16,258	4	0
251	David Peoples	$13,988	4	0
252	Guy Boros	$13,750	5	0
253	Joey Snyder III	$13,432	6	0
254	Craig Perks	$11,880	18	0
255	Joel Edwards	$11,760	3	0
256	Steven Bowditch	$11,160	22	0
257	David Gossett	$7,480	7	0
258	Mike Hulbert	$6,540	6	0
259	Jim Gallagher, Jr.	$6,390	4	0
259	Wayne Levi	$6,390	1	0
259	Michael Clark II	$6,390	4	0
262	Chip Beck	$6,180	1	0
263	David Berganio, Jr.	$6,060	2	0

"Please repair your ballmarks..."

2007-05-08T12:01:00.000-07:00

If you ever play on public courses, especially in big cities like Los Angeles, the conditions of the greens are often appalling. Not because the greenskeeper is asleep at the wheel, but because there are golfers--whole hordes of unwashed masses--who never fix their pitch marks. I've played with groups who never fix a single mark during an entire round, so I end up fixing 5 or 6 myself. Worse yet, when most golfers do attempt to fix their pitch mark, they do so incorrectly, and actually make the mark worse. In the below "diagram", the improper method--and how most golfers repair marks--is on the left: they dig below the mark and lift it. Not only does this tear the grass's roots, but lifts up the underlying soil, creating a patch of nude earth which will takes weeks to regrow. The correct technique, on the right, is to use your divot tool to push the edges of the hole into the hole itself.

This misunderstanding of correct technique probably came about because a) divot tools are so long the natural inclination is to use them as gardening tools, and b) no one is ever shown the proper technique. As to why people don't fix their marks at all, you'd have to chalk that one up to inexperience--they probably don't know they're responsible for repair of their ball marks, i.e., they're ingnoramuses..

Enter the Green Fix ball mark elimination tool.

This tool has shorter prongs and a video on the website shows its creator using the tool push the mark's edges in around itself (sound familiar?) These tools should be air dropped from C-130s over Los Angeles golf courses for all to use, and maybe, just maybe, golfers will finally show a little gratitude for hitting a green by fixing their mark (though I would like to believe any hacker that uses one will finally learn to fix ball marks properly, I have no doubt there will be doofusses who try to use it the wrong way.) Even if you don't buy a Green Fix, using proper ball mark repair technique will make all us golfers a lot happier.

One plane vs two plane: I just don't see it.

2007-05-06T21:59:00.000-07:00

I've been looking at the one plane/two plane "controversy", and I just don't get the difference. This article at Golf Digest has pictures of both swing types. Here are the two swings:

From the top of the backswing, they're nearly identical. At impact, they are identical. The thing is, if you were to put Ben Hogan's definition of "swing plane" (as seen below: the plane created between the ball and where the golfer's neck meets his shoulders) it looks as though one plane and two plane are, in actuality, the same, i.e., both under the plane. Two-plane swingers are those players who have the dramatic re-route of the club back to the inside, which is were supposed one-planers hang out all the time. Jim Hardy and his minions may have created the dichotomy of one plane vs two plane, but it may be, after all, a false one.

Funny thing about "The Short Game Bible"

2007-05-04T13:54:00.001-07:00

I've been a follower of ...The Bible for a while--Dave Pelz's "Short Game Bible" that is. In it, he's got all kinds of advice on how to be an effective shot maker inside 100 yards, which is where all rounds are made or broken. The book is chalked full of stuff like this:

That is to say, proper short game technique. And it works, but if, and only if, you have a correct golf swing. I did not have a proper golf swing for many years, and because of this, there were certain parts of his instructions that always befuddled me; namely, how to hit a 7:30 pitch. Let me explain. Pelz divides the swing into four levels of power, and he uses the face of a clock to illustrate these positions--backswings to 7:30, 9:00, 10:30, and full should enable you to cover any distance of shot. However, if you don't have a well-founded swing. the lower-power swings, 9 and 7:30, will be particularly vexing. In his book, Pelz admits that he's not teaching the golf swing, per se; he's teaching how to use the swing you've got (again, assuming yours is proper) to get more out of it. So, if Pelz's instruction, or any short game guru's, for that matter, has given you fits, try and straighten-out your full swing.

Ben Hogan + living room video cam + too much time = better swing

2007-04-26T16:04:00.000-07:00

I finally read Ben Hogan's famed "Five Lessons." It gives you the model on which you should base your own swing. The only thing missing is (besides drawings of his swing from behind, and not just face-on) a way to compare your swings to Mr. Hogan's model. Enter V1 Video Analysis Software . It's the kind of software that lets you do this:

You can look at all your angles, see how much you move during the swing, determine if your pronating or supinating, and most importantly, compare your swing to one of the swings of professional golfers from their video library--all for free (and for a mere $40, you can upgrade to a version that lets you play your swing alongside a pro's. But if you're just starting out, I'd say you can keep your money -- if you get really serious about improvement, $40 is not much to spend.) Even on my old laptop (850 MHz Pentium III) it ran perfectly smoothly. To see yourself compared to a pro is an epiphany. A few things I discovered were: swings recorded in the living room were equally valuable to swings recorded at the range; feel is, as the cliche goes, not real, i.e., what you think you're doing is not what you're actually doing.

Choose your weapons wisely...

2007-04-18T21:47:00.000-07:00

I would imagine the golf club industry is like any other, where those with the lion's share or the market do their best to limit the success of small upstarts who, in any miniscule way, threaten their dominance. For instance, Nike, Titleist, Taylor Made and Callaway would probably like for nothing better than lesser-known club companies to die or, at least, sell themselves to them. That's why companies like SMT Golf intrigue me. They appear to make drivers (and it looks like they're tangentializing into irons and fairway woods, too) that seem to have the edge on the designs of bigger companies. I'm no engineer and have no objective means to judge the claims SMT makes, but the fact that a pro (330--seriously?) played their gear without remuneration--or at least, considerably less than a big company could have offered--suggests that either Schwarmkrug is possibly sitting in a motel somewhere crying into his beer, "I'm so stupid! Why didn't I take [Ping's, Titleist's, TaylorMade's] money? Stupid, stupid, stupid!" Or, alternatively, believes in SMT. This also brings to mind another small club company in souther California, KZ Golf. (Disclaimer: I interviewed with them in sales, but decided against it when I came to understand than I would a lousy salesman.) They only sell clubs that are custom fitted to the prospective buyer, which is, after all, what most golfers should be doing. Not only does the fitting process match club to a golfer's physique, but the tester can also point out any egregious swing errors the fittee may be exhibiting. If you see a set of KZG clubs on ebay, don't waste your time buying them because they were fitted to someone else who is not you. Speaking of fitting, Maxout Golf, also here in southern California, does custom fitting, but they don't sell proprietary clubs. Like KZ Golf, they'll fit you, point out your swing flaws, and most likely give you enough improvement that you'll be grateful for the rest of your life.

All these companies--SMT, KZ Golf, and Maxout--offer services that the big golf manufacturers would be happier if you didn't know about, and that if you use them, you'll be better off than buying off the rack.

I forgot to not try to not remember

2007-02-14T17:37:00.000-08:00

A funny thing happened to me on the way to a golf shot--I forgot my SWING THOUGHTS! Like greased pigs, they slipped through my fingers. Without them, I I felt naked, exposed, and vulnerable (dangling, if you know what I mean) as I stood over my ball and failed to latch onto any of the litany of swing thoughts whizzing through my mind like children swirling by on a teacup ride, "Kick knee in, keep arms close, hands low, rotate torso..." I couldn't focus on any of them, so decided to screw it and swing away. Hit an 8 iron to 5 feet. A few shots later, went through the same process (or lack of) on a wedge--chunked it half as far as I should have. Bloody confusing business. However, I think I'm going to stick with this. It's much easier to let the annoying, cloying, desperate swing thoughts go somewhere else while I play golf.

Golf is improv

2006-09-30T08:41:00.000-07:00

Many golfers are misled by watching the pros, who tend to make golf look robotically simple. But it isn't. Each shot is an event unto itself, so golf is actually complete improvisation. Not shot is set in stone, but must be thought out and felt on a moment-to-moment basis. Instead of hoping your round will conform to anything approaching a pro's round, it instead is a shot-by-shot experience, where each shot is a completely original and not-to-be-repeated event.

"Who does this guy think he is?"
"I don't know Danny, but I do know this: no one has ever played better than me in a button down shirt."

Go, baby, go!

2006-08-21T07:31:00.000-07:00

I like underdogs. In any sport, when underdogs win, it's almost always more exciting, more entertaining. I used to feel that way about Tiger Woods. If anyone could mount a comeback with Woods in the lead, I was backing the little man every time.

But not anymore.

Woods' wins over the last two majors have completely turned me around. Not only do I want to see him win, I want to see him win everything. We golf watchers are in the presence of greatness, and I would like to see that greatness compound itself beyond not only my expectations, but even my imagination.

If there was any doubt that he's the best golfer ever, he put those doubts to rest. The downside to this is that now, golf writers will feel even more compelled to construct rivalries between Woods and other golfers, but those rivalries are as contrived as the President's Cup. Woods has no peer. In a couple of years, Woods may reconstruct his swing, and for a season or two, the vacuum created by his absence will bring a few players to the fore, but inevitably, Woods will return and take back the mantle of Best Player Ever.

Hair (and I ain't talking Rado, Ragni and MacDermot)

2006-07-21T21:28:00.000-07:00

I've got no problem with daring hair styling choices. I've even toyed with the idea of mixing up my standard hair look a few times myself. But if I could give a word of advice to Euro golfers: The "Highlighting Era" has long sinced passed. The only people still highlighting over in the U.S. (specifically Glendale, CA) are young Armenian women, who, too, apparently didn't get the message that blonde highlights now officially look ridiculous (I'm pretty sure the federal government sent out a mass mailing to that effect.) Euro golfers--if you want to be a rebel, try a hair style that you think up yourself, or at least, have only seen on the newest punk bands. I understand that pro golfers have to walk to thin line between appeasing their ultra-conservative corporate money men, and, on the other hand, trying to avoid in oneself the feeling that you're not just another guy whose main contribution to society is chasing a hard white ball. It's tough, I admit. But for the love of God, dousing your scalp with a bottle of hydrogen peroxide is no way to make an existential statement. How about an arm-band tattoo--barbed wire, perhaps?

Next week: Why you shouldn't waste your time reading Über-hacks Cameron Morfit and Ron Sirak.

Stop the insanity!

2006-07-14T14:29:00.000-07:00

There is a certain kind of golf madness. A madness that is born of equipment. Much equipment. Choices of equipment.

For instance--which irons do you want? Game-improvement, or ultra-game-improvement? Semi-stiff, high-torque, or low kick point with high torque? Do you need a 350cc driver, 400cc or 460cc? How about hybrids vs. fairway woods?

Yes, this is insanity, and, what's worse, it can infect other aspects of your life. For instance, electric guitars offer as much choice wackiness at golf, if not more. Of late, my golf setup has been quite settled, but I've taken up the guitar, and have worn myself down to the nub looking at used guitars. A pox on eBay!

Tiger, come back.

2006-06-19T19:29:00.000-07:00

Let me qualify the title of this post. I'm not a huge Tiger fan, simply because he doesn't embrace his role as the #1 golfer in the world with much eagerness--no signings, no bumps, nothing. He could use a lot less prima dona and more Everyman. But that aside, it was amusing to watch the U.S. Open unfold without Tiger's presence--we could subtitle the '06 Open the "Implosion" Open. Afterall, how many pros had a chance to win the event with nothing more than a par at the last? Furyk, Monty, Figjam Mickelson, and Harrington all had a chance to win--on 18, no less--but fluffed it out. The sad thing is that the back 9 had potential fto produce drama we hadn't seen in thirty years. Monty could have landed his elusive major, or Furyk could have gone on to claim his spot among golf's semi-greats. Figjam Mickelson could have laid claim to a spot as a genuine Tiger threat, having won three of four of the last majors. Instead, we were faced with a bunch of guys shaking their heads after missing shots which could have brought them the Open. Oh well, majors are meant to be won or lost on fantastic plays, and the '06 Open was no different--just so happens the plays were real stinkers.

Golf's Big Five bores or Come on, Golfers -- Act Like You WANT it!

2006-06-12T21:23:00.000-07:00

It may gratify some to watch the perennial favorites win, but I'd rather watch the smaller, more significant dramas unfold. Take last weekend's Barclay Classic. An early leader was Billy Andrade, a pro golfer who has fallen on relatively hard times (I say "relatively" because with his sponsorships and earnings, he's still doing financially better than 97 percent of Americans--$11 million career earnings since '87 (by comparison, I've made $600,000 in the same period.)) Azinger commented that Andrade is no longer exempt, and needs to get inside the top 125 in earnings to secure his card for next year. A win would have gone quite a ways toward that end, but he didn't win. He played good, but not great, and came in fifth. One more top ten and he'll probably be okay for next year. But isn't it more fun to watch a guy like Andrade play for his life and/or career than watch Veej stoically win another check for his retirement fund? I could have even rooted for Adam Scott, who is also quite stoic, if he had shown in some demonstrable way that he really wanted to win--a twitch, hyperventilation, ANYTHING. Which brings me back to the Big five Bores. (Note: These guys may not currently be in the top five, but they are more often than not in the top five, which is why I'll spend an inordinate amount of time commenting on them.) Woods can be fun to watch--when he isn't acting like a robot, but Mickelson, Veej, Els and Goosen are sleep-inducingly boring.

Living without a net

2006-06-01T09:18:00.000-07:00

I was watching the Golf Channel the other night and their resident psychologist took a question from a viewer. The viewer wanted to know if, since he had lowered his handicap from 18 to 8 in a year, he was justified in wanting to turn pro. My first instinct was to wonder, "Are you NUTS? At least get to scratch and play some competitive golf and see if you like it." The psychologist decided he had no right to tell anyone what to do with their life--which is true--but for the would-be pro to be cautious.
I then went on to consider my own life, and the risks I've taken on as a would-be pro writer in Los Angeles. I guess I could also apply the "Are you NUTS" comment to my own life. I'm probably about an 8 handicap writer--better than 99 percent of the public, but still with lower handicap writers ahead of me, and a few more hard-knock lessons to learn. I think Ray Bradbury said it best:
If we listened to our intellect, we'd never have a love affair. We'd never have a friendship. We'd never go into business, because we'd be cynical. Well, that's nonsense. You've got to jump off cliffs all the time and build your wings on the way down.

I guess that means if you're an 8 handicap golfer or writer, it's time to jump.

Flowers for Algernon: The Golf Edition

2006-05-25T08:48:00.000-07:00

My golf game can be defined as consisting largely of the vast valleys between Algernonaic heights of golf enlightenment. You know what I mean--those rare times when your swing seems to take over on its own and hitting the ball perfectly and with great command seems like the easiest thing you've ever performed. You can't WAIT to hit the next shot because it's so damned easy.
But then, inevitably, the magic evaporates. You're left holding the husk of understanding, trying to pump life back into that husk, trying to get back the magic, but it's gone.
I've learned that you have to take what understanding you can from those inspired moments, and then forget them. Magic will take care of itself--since it comes and goes at its own whim--and there's no point in trying to bring it back. If you can remember what you were doing in your swing that made it work better than what you had been doing before, then study it. But don't cry for the lost magic--it will return again at a time of its choosing. Be happy when it does, but also be happy when you're grinding away in the valleys, trying to figure out how your swing works. Your handicap won't go down by waiting for magic, but it will while you dig that swing out of the valley's dirt.

To forgive or not to forgive

2006-05-22T09:01:00.000-07:00

There have been times in my golf life upon which I have looked back and wondered, "What in happy horseshit was I thinking?!" Case-in-point, my dabbling in the world of forged blades.
Blades are not impossible to hit. If you're swinging well, you can play just as well with them as with any other club. The problem was when I was swinging well, it was usually on the range. And range performance doesn't translate to the course. Actual golf, when played for score, is a much more random and unruly beast than swinging on the range. I made the switch back to uber-forgiving clubs (Ping Zings) a couple of years back and don't regret it a bit. I've recently been looking at an even more forgiving set, '94 Callaway Big Berthas.
I'm a solid 12 handicap, but I feel the more forgiving club I can play, the better. Actually, when talking about forgiveness, we're only really talking about long and mid-irons. Short irons, be they cavity back or blade, play about the same, because in both types, the club's face is so much closer to horizontal that the center of gravity ends up being in about the same spot.
I had the rare gift of taking a novice golfer through the paces of buying a complete set of used clubs at Roger Dunn. When I saw a used set of '94 Berthas, I told my friend (as I wiped the drool from my face) "Buy those." He hit them, I hit them, and they really are super forgiving, even more so than my Pings. Of course, they were regular flex, so the soft tip wasn't as precise as a stiffer shaft, but all-in-all, I was very happy that my friend lucked out and found those clubs. He tried putters, woods, wedges and bought a full set of everything. When we got to putters, we went straight to the "used" bin, and found some incredible deals. We both thought the Baby Ben Bettinardi putter (marked down from $200 to $50!) was quite the deal. He agreed and even paid me for my troubles with a Baby Ben Bettinardi putter. As for the '94 Callaways, they can be had for a song on eBay, so as soon as I get a job, I'm picking up a set, ooky stares from my wife be damned!

Expectations, the scourge of western civilization

2006-05-18T21:00:00.000-07:00

Okay, the G.I.R. thingy didn't work out (or rather, my ability to hit more than three G.I.R.s didn't work out). I only hit three, but kept it under 90, but only by two measly strokes. Granted, I was playing for the first time at De Bell in Burbank, so I was scuttled somewhat by lack of local knowledge. I'm going to play there again next weekend, so I won't have my lack of local knowledge to blame.
Here's a question I'd like you readers to answer: when playing with different clubs, say, a buddy's borrowed set while on a trip, do you usually play better or worse? I recently played with a buddies Cobra SS irons and I hit them pretty good. They had regular shafts, where my Ping Zings have stiff, which begs a question: are my Ping shafts too stiff for my swing? I've never been professionally fitted, and at around $250 to have it done, it isn't going to happen anytime soon (I suppose when my ship comes in, I'll get fit and buy a Sky Caddie on the same day. Of course, after buying my wife an exquisite piece of jewelry. Or at least, I'll let her think I bought her the jewelry first.)
So from a shaft fitting perspective, it's equally likely that I'm playing overly stiff shafts. Oy, I thought I'd put all this club buying shit behind me. I've got much too many things to obsess about--spec scripts I need to write, job to find, self to convince myself doesn't exist, which Fender or Gibson knock-off electric guitar to buy (I'm leaning heavily towards an Agile Les Paul knock off, they've gotten great reviews on Harmony Central. Plus, there's no way I'm going to Guitar Center or Sam Ash to play one. Firstly, they don't carry Agiles, and secondly, I CANNOT STAND when the guitar salesguys hover over you as you play. I feel naked, and since my playing is at the novice level, it's just too frustrating to play in front of them. I know, I know, you're saying, "Get over yourself little man." But it's just human nature to feel castrated in that situation, and since I spend most of my mental effort trying not to be castrated by the actual competitive world, I don't feel like going to the guitar shop and coming so close to castration when the guitar is supposed to be fun.)
So, back to shafts, I think my Ping shafts may be too stiff. So you know what I did? I went and swung my wife's clubs, which have Senior flex shafts (known as "A" flex: interesting sidetrack. Back in the day, "A" flex stood for amateur, and no one in the golf industry has felt like changing it.) The swings felt great. Fast, easy, little effort. So, tomorrow, I'm going to do a head-to-head comparison at the ole' range. If the Gramps shafts win out, it could be curtains for the Pings, though I am LOATHE to part with them. I'm attached, you know? They've suffered right along with me, but then again, they may have been responsible for a lot of that suffering. So DAMN them to HELL.
Which brings me to another subject and another question for you, the reader. Why is it that people become attached to things? Like the shirt that Uncle Bob gave you during that summer on the Cape? The recipe Mom gave you before she died? A Christmas ornament Grams and you painted when you were five? What does all this stuff MEAN? Mom is dead, and making that recipe in her honor isn't going to change that? Right? This is a tough question I've struggled with ever since my Mom died 20 years ago, but it applies to any kind of regret or sentimentality. After all, the recipe, or the shirt, or the ornament are just a symbol for something in us that we can't let go of, but was is it? I suppose if I could answer that question, I'd probably be on the road to... well, I'd be on the road, which is a something.

Ciao.

KZ Golf and what to buy

2006-05-05T09:04:00.000-07:00

I went on a job interview with KZ Golf, a custom pro-line manufacturer. I didn't take the job because me and "sales" are like Superman and kryptonite--just doesn't mix. But they were a really cool bunch who believe every word on their website. You see, the Big 5--Nike, Titleist, Callaway, Cobra and Wilson--rely on advertising to get you to buy their products. Whether or not you shoot better scores is irrelevant, because, they know if you don't play well, you'll blame yourself, not their clubs. Enter KZG. They only sell their clubs to retailers who can custom fit you to the gear. I've never been fitted, so I can't say if fitting really is as important as fitters claim. I did have a Ping fitting, and they recommeded I play upright clubs (green dot), but the one time I played a buddy's green dot set, I hit just as you would expect to if they were too upright--slices all the way (and I NEVER slice.) Still, I'm DYING to go through the fitting process, but it'll have to wait until I, at least, have a job. And if you think you might want to buy KZG stuff off eBay, whether used or new, don't bother--if you can't get the clubs fit to you, there's really no point in buying them (which I learned at the job interview.)

I may have mentioned this before, but aside from a fitting, the only other golf item I really, really want is the Sky Caddie. Trying to guess yardages is a pain-in-the-ass, and I would love to see how much better I play if I had accurate measurments while I played. Sadly, new Sky Caddies are $350, and you have to buy a yearly subscription (anywhere from $20 to $60.) Now this is an item, unlike the KZG clubs, which I will wholeheartedly buy on eBay. They usually go for around $300, but hey, fifty bucks is fifty bucks.

I'm playing tomorrow at De Bell in Burbank. It's a "sporting" executive, which means there are par 5s, but instead of relying on distance to pose the challenge to par, the course uses doglegs. For instance, I think there's a 450 yard par 5, which, under normal circumstances, would a fairly easy hole. But, De Bell has thrown-in a right turn just short of the drive's landing area, so you'd best be accurate. But the radical bit of info I recently learned is this--QUIZ: there is a strong correlation between which of the following: a) driving distance, b)driving accuracy, c) putting, d) sand saves, or e) greens-in-regulation? The answer is "e", G.I.R. More than any other factor, how many greens you hit has the most significant correlation to score. And this holds true for pros as well. To break 90, you have to hit at least 3 G.I.R.s; 80, you have to hit at least 8 G.I.R.s; 70, you have to hit at least 13 G.I.R.s Cool, huh? Here's the article from Golf Digest's website:

By Lucius Riccio, Ph.D.
Golf Digest
May 2006

Of all the statistics in the game, only two really matter when it comes to determining score: greens hit in regulation (example: you hit a par-4 green in two) and putts. Breaking 80 usually goes with reaching certain benchmarks in these areas. To help you get there, Shelby Futch, who heads the Golf Digest Schools, has provided some quick tips (below). My job is to show you the numbers.

Most golfers think putting is the biggest factor in scoring, but greens in regulation (GIRs) are much more important. So important, you almost don't need to look at anything else to predict your score. The most useful score-analysis tool I've developed, called "Riccio's Rule" and first published in Golf Digest in 1987, predicts score based on GIRs: Score = 95 – 2 x GIRs. The chart below, based on this rule, shows how GIRs relate to score:

The above is a chart that didn't load, but here's the info in it (G.I.R.=average score):
1=93, 2=91, 3=89, 4=87, 5=85, 6=83, 7=81, 8=79, 9=77, 10=75, 11=73, 12=71, 13=69.

Here's a quick way to remember the effect of GIRs on your score: "Three greens break 90, eight greens break 80, and 13 greens break 70." That prediction is fairly accurate for any single round, and within one stroke about 90 percent of the time when you take the average of four or more rounds.

So that's our first part: To consistently break 80, you should average eight or more GIRs. Take a few recent scorecards, or record your next few rounds, and average your scores, then average your GIRs. Compare your results to the chart at left. I bet you're right at, or very close to, where the chart says you should be. But if you score better than your GIRs would predict--say, you hit four greens but average 83--you probably have an extraordinary short game. You need to focus on hitting more greens. If you score worse than your GIRs would predict--say, you hit seven greens but average 85--then your putting is weak, or you tend to have blowup holes, which throw off any system for predicting score.

So, it would seem that paying attention to G.I.R.s is more important than avoiding 3-putts. I'll be putting this insight to the test tomorrow and will let you know how it worked out.

Here's a depressing thought: I now know of three people who went from rank beginner to scratch golfer in one year: Greg Norman, Earl Woods, and Mike, the fitter at KZG.

Playing versus practice

2006-04-24T08:20:00.000-07:00

I had an enlightening experience the other day. I went to my favorite practice course (Scholl Canyon in Glendale, CA) with my usual intention to play 9 holes and try all kinds of different shots on the course, i.e., practice. I wasn't going to worry about my score, but then I decided to chuck the idea of practice and really try to get a score. Now, I'm not here to say to say I shot the lights out; no, I did what I usually do--hit it loose on the front, tighten it up on the back. But what did happen was that I was able to concentrate on each shot and not worry about my score or technique or any of the little niggling things that distract and keep me from playing well. I also experienced that strange yet common golf experience of remembering the correct techniques for certain shots--you know, you figure out a technique and say to yourself, "Wait a minute, I taught myself this last summer. Man, get with the program!" I think most golfers remain "average" because they can't improve their skills--or even maintain--due to lack of practice time. Ever notice how really good golfers always seem to have come from country-club- member parents? The club provided the young golfer the hours-upon-hours of practice time needed to learn and re-learn skills--a process we average Joes string out over decades.

One way to optimize practice is to make sure you're relaxed while you're doing it. Unexpectedly, I learned something from my ongoing guitar learning experience that applies to golf. I found a guitar teacher on the web whose system of practice applies perfectly to golf. Check out this here. I'm sure this guy's lessons (or girl--is "Jaime" male of female?) can be applied to everything from guitar to golf to painting to yoga.

[Note: there's a link the guitar man's site to the left]

Survey results and this world of ours

2006-02-17T05:41:00.000-08:00

Just as I suspected, my loyal readers are conscientious, rational, are neither religious nor Bush dogmatists, and feel that good golf comes from practice and confidence. And here's where my heart really goes out: you all feel you could be playing much better; in fact, you feel your golfing potential is largely unfulfilled--if we were fulfilled, we probably wouldn't be golfers.

You just got to stick with it. Golf, guitar, writing, and scrimshaw all require persistence for mastery. But jeez, it does sometimes just piss you off when we don't "get it." Practice is supposed to make us better, and when it doesn't, you can feel like the chucking the whole thing. Maybe that's a sign it's time for a break. My shoulder injury worked out great for my game. I'm hitting it like never before. I'm heading the course this afternoon, and when I get back, I shall post my new personal best score (I know it's going to happen, I can just feel it.) So, see you in a few hours.

Ciao.

This week's SURVEY

2006-01-10T09:37:00.000-08:00

Well, I did it. Yep, my rotator cuff is cheese, so until it's back to 100% health, I've been benched. No more golf for a few months. Instead, I'll be getting into shape, doing all kinds of exercises I should have done a long time ago. For those of you with a similar injury, don't let your doctor talk you too quickly into surgery unless you are in extremely bad shape; I'm talking excruciating pain. Stretching, strengthening, and rest from the offending sport can restore most rotator cuffs to full health. Surgery causes lots of nasty scar tissue which is really tough to stretch, so only use surgery as a last resort. While I rehab, I'll still be talking about the insanity that is golf, but in the meantime, how about a little survey? I'd like to know what my visitors think, so take a minute and follow the link, follow the link, follow the yellow brick link and fill it out (there's a link back to my blog if you so choose to return.) I'll post the results in a few weeks.

Okay, golf, you win. Just stop punching me in the nads.

2005-12-29T08:44:00.000-08:00

Woods and his caddy having
trouble connecting their High-5. Confidence issues?

I don't know how much longer I can take this. Went out and played a round with my brother, and I was hitting the same stupid hooks that I never, ever hit on the range. What the hell is that about? How can I degrade from my great range swing to an almost unusable swing on the course? Well, let's see. Of late, I've had a hard time of it, what with trying to write some spec screenwriting material (which isn't going so well), and all the year-end self-evaluation, I'd say my self-image is not at peak form. So I guess it's not surprising that I'd go out and not hit the most confident shots--I'm probably a little too much in my head. But jeez, not "The Hook." I thought I'd seen the last of the shot which is this blog's namesake. It's kind of like getting up to sing before an audience, opening your mouth, and only French comes out. You stop, regroup, say to yourself, "Sing in ENGLISH! ENGLISH! ENGLISH!" Take a deep breath, open your mouth, and out comes French again. Oy vey, to be a man on the golf course is to suffer. To top it off, every joint associated with the golf swing--shoulder, wrists, neck--is perpetually sore, so I may have seen my last golf for awhile if my doctor tells me to let my ligaments and tendons take a rest.

Maybe the point of a bad swing is to just stop caring? Just let it do its thing, I'll do mine, and go with the flow. Of course, practice is required, but once on the course, maybe you're supposed to make due with what you got, and leave the beautiful shots to the land of dreams from whence they came? I know that sounds a little high-fallutin', but what other options do I--or any of us--actually have? Sure, it would be nice if I could get a set of teaching pro's eyes to look at my Wounded Swing, but since I don't have a pro on retainer to help me out when things go badly, what's a guy to do but accept it and move on? I was able to shoot an 86, which, while not stellar, isn't miserable, either. So I guess I'll have to accept it until something better comes along.

A Bold Experiment update: Since, as you've just read, my swing left me utterly, it didn't make a difference what club I would have used from 200 yards (the yardage for which I have no specific club) be it an iron, hybrid, or wood. I will say this: When I'm swinging well, I could use a hockey stick from 200 yards and hit it within 15 feet, so my Bold Experiment just might be a non-issue (the real issue being working on my on-course performance, not set make-up.)

A bold experiment update

2005-12-01T08:16:00.000-08:00

The club on the left (in 17 degrees) is my one fairway wood. As you know, I've been trying to get along with just it alone. I hit the wood between 230 and 250 (with a helping wind) and since my set begins at 5 iron, which I hit 180-190 range, I have a huge yardage gap. So, I think I've come to a conclusion: I need another club. I'll probably going to pick up a PING HL 2 or 3 iron. But only if the price is right, and that means Ebay. And lots of searching. And searching. And waiting. And searching. And bidding. And searching again. And waiting.

However, I've just discovered a rather pricey piece of golf gear I'd like to get my hands on--the Sky Caddie. It's a GPS yardage guide that tells you how far you are to hazards and the front, middle and back of the green. It's $350--OUCH!--and since I'm not retired, (I am unemployed as the TV show I was working on got canceled) I don't have any disposable income. Disposable time? That I obviously have plenty of.

Feeding golf's hungry ghosts

2005-11-29T08:10:00.000-08:00

I bought a Cleveland Launcher 4 wood at Roger Dunn golf, home of the famous 90-day exchange policy. I had been hitting some snap hooks with it, so decided a different club might be in order. I wanted exchange it for a PING HL 4 iron but didn't want the store to put my 4 wood on the sales floor. In response to my request, the salesguy offered this, "We can't do that, so you haver two options: be patient with your current club, or be sure you want to get rid of it, because you won't be getting it back." After my initial peevishness, I took the 4 wood to the range and hit snap hooks until... I didn't. I figured-out what was causing my hooks, straightened out my shots, and was hitting it better than ever. So why is it that most golfers--myself included--automatically put the blame on their gear and not their swing when they're game goes sour? There are many superficial advantages and God knows I love superficiality. Firstly, who doesn't like to shop for new clubs? Each new purchase is another fresh, steaming hope thrown onto the dung heap of hopes that we will, at last, be the golfers we know we can be. Secondly, it's a lot easier to say your clubs suck and not your swing which has 12 swing thoughts, 8 waggles, and 5 excuses why it hit a worm-burning slice, yet again. If statistics are to be believed, only about 10 percent of guys in the pro shop will actually benefit from better-matched clubs; the rest of us are just kidding ourselves. Even if you're loaded with cash and don't mind spending the money on a continual flow of new equipment, you're, at best, treading water with your swing and game--why would you want to do that? A beautiful swing and great score are more satisfying than any new club. That' not to say today's clubs, especially drivers, aren't going to help; they're ridiculously more forgiving than their presimmon predecessors, but this year's model isn't going to improve your score any more than using last year's model. Show a little patience and work on your swing. If you suck at golf, admit it, get some lessons, and instead of spending thousands of dollars on golf clubs, buy art instead.

What was I thinking?

2005-11-20T22:07:00.000-08:00

A few years ago, I bought a PING Huffer stand bag for $170, and my brother said, "How can you do that?" I thought he was wacky for questioning why I would spend that not unsubstantial sum of money on a golf bag--and a PING bag at that. Over the next year or so, I came to an understanding that allowed me to ask myself: What was I thinking spending $170 on a lousy golf bag? Was I insane, temporarily seduced by the lure of brand name products? I must have been, because since then, I've played just fine without a brand name bag (until I got a Datrek IDS bag this weekend at Out of the Closet for $25--WOW!) I remember when I was 19, and I thought buying a Ralph Lauren shirt was like touching the hem of the Virgin Mary's robe. If I am indicative of the American public, I would imagine most apparel companies make most their money off the younger crowd, preying on their fragile identities. It's sad, really, because I know plenty of guys who never shake this dependence on brand name. As they get older, they become more odd, adhering to a system of indentification they should be, at least, beginning to shed. Now I'll admit PING golf clubs are second to none in terms of forgivness and playability (and at my first opportunity, I will pick-up a used set of G2s, with the HL option) but their accessories, I hate to admit, are nothing but pure hype. There are plenty of golf bags better than PING, their apparel is nothing to write home about, but they have a right to make cash like anyone else. The only reason anyone ever wears PING golf apparel is because they, too, have been seduced, or have a connection to at-cost or free stuff. If PING wants me to wear a visor with PING emblazoned on the brow, why don't they pay ME to walk around advertising their product?

One Plane Golf Swing

2005-11-15T06:51:00.000-08:00

Here's a fantastic website by Chuck Quinton, a golf instructor somewhere in Florida. He teaches the one plane swing, and has lots of streaming video drills to watch. I think it's a good starting point for learning the swing, but finding a local teacher is ultimately the best idea. From my own experience, this swing works great with the driver, but I've a little trouble applying it to short irons--probably because it's a much more "around" than vertical swing. What Chuck is best at, contrary to what you might think, is teaching average golfers not to worry so much about technique. Too many golfers obsess about golf mechanics, which dooms them to inconsistent play on the course. That's refreshing.

To golf or not to golf

2005-11-11T06:37:00.000-08:00

5 hours is a long time to dedicate to golf, and I would play more often if it didn't take so long, but the problem is that starters allow too many groups on the course. Sure, if fewer groups were given tee times, fewer golfers would get decent tee times, but on L.A.'s muni courses, getting a good tee time is already the impossible dream, so what difference would it make if starters sent groups off every 17 minutes instead of 10? The second reason golf is so damn slow is that most golfers think they reach par 5s and long par 4s in two shots, which 95% of golfers can't. To prove this to yourself, just watch the group ahead of you. On par 5s, you always see guys standing in the fairway waiting for the green to clear, and once it does, step up to the ball, and hit a topped worm-burner about 100 yards--without fail.

It would also help matters if marshalls actually did their jobs and kept people's paces up, instead of hoping their mere presence near a slow group is enough to frighten them into faster play. C'mon marshalls, grow a pair. The people I play with usually have the good sense to pick up after hitting triple bogey en route to the hole, but if they don't, I've no problem telling them they should.

Another way to quicken play is to demand everyone have a handicap and only allow those with one better than, say, a 28, play courses over 6000 yards. There are courses for learning to play, and learners should stick to those courses until they can play fast enough to not ruin it for everyone behind them--playing on a par 72 course should be a privilege for dedicated players, not a right for every duffer who bought a set of clubs and is going to roam around a course just because they like Tiger Woods.

Embarrassment wears a polo

2005-11-09T06:37:00.000-08:00

A couple of weeks ago I played a round of golf with my wife's uncle, who in some cirlces is known simply as Uncle Bob (though his name isn't Bob, and if I ever called him Bob to his face, he'd probably drive his 550 horsepower Corvette up my ass.) He lives in a gated golf community, and his house is just off #1 green. First, a comment about gated communities. In my past life as a fan of the proletariat, I poo-pooed anything that smacked of elitism. Gated communities topped the list of things I would never support. However, I have to admit, when my wife and I drove up to the front gate, said we were visting Uncle Bob and his wife, and the guard opened the gate for us, I felt kind of special. Exclusivity is such a wonderful thing. It is weird, though, to drive the streets and find little traffic, and what traffic there is mainly consists of Porsches, Cadillacs, and other overly horsepowered cars. Speaking of horsepower--ever driven in a 550 hp car? It throws you into your seat like a Shuttle take-off. I drive a '93 Escort wagon with a fuel injection problem, so the only horses under my hood are anemic old swaybacked nags.

Back to the gated community. The quiet streets could definetely lead one to think a deep secret covers the town in hush, but knowing Uncle Bob, the only secret there could be is that no one wants to talk to anyone else because none of the men are in town any longer than 2 days before taking off on a business trip, and don't want to waste precious time talking to nieghbors.

But the golf...my god the golf! I started out great, but as is always the case, as I got more tired, by swing got funkier until Uncle Bob felt it was appropriate to say, "The way you played the last hole was UGLY." Truly, it was. The thing is is that as I warmed up on the driving before the round, I knew something was off. I was hitting some very strange wedge shots, and when your wedges are off, you're in deep, deep bat guano. So, here's my advice for when you're about to tee off and are fully cognizant that your game has mutated into a freakish monster: find a swing, be it ugly, ridiculous, or primitive, that can get you through the day and stick with it. I tried to fix my swing on the course and that only made it worse. If I had accepted the fact my swing was going to suck on the driving range and took steps to remedy it, I probably would have had a much better score, and isn't that what it's all about?

Bold Experiment update: Though I've only played one round with just a 4 wood, initial feedback tells me it's a bad idea. I don't carry a 3 or 4 iron, so I have a big yardage gap between 240 and 185, and choking down on the 4 wood isn't covering the bill. So, if the tv show I'm working on isn't canceled before Christmas, I'm going to buy a hybrid, maybe a PING G2 HL 3 or 4 iron, or a Cleveland Halo. Oh, and if anyone knows of a good one-plane swing teacher in the Los Angeles area, please forward me his/her info. Muchas gracias.

A bold experiment

2005-09-24T09:23:00.000-07:00

I'm attempting to live with only 1 fairway wood. It's 17 degree Cleveland Launcher 4 wood. I'm tired of lugging around the 3, 5, or 7 woods, and for what? I use them each at most a couple of times in a round, and they end up not making much of a difference in the score. If I can't hit my driver, 5 degrees more of loft on hte 3 wood isn't going to help, AND trying to reach a long par 5 with a 3 wood is a very low percentage shot. On the other hand, I can hit a 5 iron about the same as a 7 wood (don't believe the hype--if you can hit a 7 wood or hybrid well, you can hit a 5 iron) so why lug around all the extra hardware? Sure, there might be a yardage gap somewhere in the 190-220 range, but how important is that? Also, when I was buying the Launcher, I overheard the staff at Roger Dunn (an awesome place to pick-up used gear if you're in Socal) saying the TaylorMade Quad (you know, the drivers with the weights) is a BITCH to hit if you're not a sigle-digit player, so beware! I picked-up a used Cobra SS 427 on ebay for $125 and couldn't be happier with it.

Tiger Woods must be stopped!

2005-07-20T06:35:00.000-07:00

Over the weekend, Tiger Woods won the British Open (here seen on the 18th tee at St. Andrews enroute to a 5 stroke victory, Reuters) and I guess all the naysayers should now shutup. I was never a naysayer, though I wanted him to fail, but I assure you, my motives were noble. I wanted to see how bad things could get for him before he charged back to a dramatic comeback. Comebacks are the best thing in sports (Red Sox?) and a good one for Woods is just what I need. I'm a busy guy, my time is valuable, so when I sit down to watch some golf, I expect to be entertained. Since Bill Murray can't play in every tournament , someone, for Christ's sake has to put their foot down, and that foot is me! To that end, I have begun a campaign to force the PGA, USGA and the R&A to give strokes to the field when Woods is playing. Just think how much fun it would have been if he'd started the Open at 5+. Now that's a tournament! How else are these guys ever going to compete with him?

All right, back to something about golf.

2005-06-23T20:06:00.000-07:00

Hello, my name is Sigmund Freud (pronounced ZIG-mund Froid you silly American cunnigets) and I vant to talk to you today about--YOUR MOTHER!

Vas she a strong voman? Did she tell you when you could or couldn't poop? Ja? Ist eine true?
Now answer me this--are you having trouble with your golf game, hmm? Can you not hit zee little vhite ball around the green golf course and into zee hole? No? Then come and sit on my sofa so that I might pick your brain.

That's it, relax. Breathe deeply. Let go.

Now, I am going to say a vord or phrase and you shout out vhat ever comes into your little filthy mind. Okay, mein cunniget? Here vee go:

Donkey...?

I'll say it again.

Donkey...?

Listen, you've got to say what ever comes into your crazy head. Ja? Vhitout your cooperation, I cannot free you from your neurosis. Trust me, I know you'll do fntastic, as my good friend Arnold Schwarzeneeger says.

Again. Donkey....?

Obviously, you don't want to cooperate. You say you want to talk about your lack of golfing skill? Fine, it's your dime.

Now, your mother vas a tyrant, was she not? A castrating tyrant? It's fine to say so, everyone's mother vas a tyrant. What you've got to do is free yourself from her controlling ways, which, through no fault of your own, you have internalized. Ja, your mommie is dead and in zee ground, but she still controls you.

Free yourself! Fly like the free bird that your are! Fly, damn you, fly!

Why don't you fly? What? You thought I was Dr. Coop?

You stupid little pooper! Do I look like a white guy? I'm Jewish you idiot--I don't GOLF! Get out of my office.
....and don't kid yourself, you're paying for this visit. I could have been scoring chicks with Jung down at the club instead of wasting time vit you. Here's how it works. I do the talking, Carl here--

has the body, and the come to us.

Dr. Wayne Dyer--A Charlatan for Our Time

2005-06-22T07:03:00.000-07:00

Wayne Dyer, venerable self-help guru who gets major airtime on PBS during fund drives, should be avoided at all costs. If you really want to get to the bottom of his weltanshauung, or world view (isn't German the best?) take a look at his website.

Did you notice it? That's right, his website is a clearinghouse for the Wayne Dyer Product Line. He sells 20 different books on how to make yourself happy. Just look at the Power of Intention product line: there's the flip calendar, the cards, the hardcover, and lastly, the 4 cd set--all right there on the main page, just begging to be bought.

Head over to this religious organization, or maybe this one, or even here, and look at their front pages. See any difference? Yes, you got it: none of these organizations are hitting you up for cash from the get-go. Now I know Dr. Wayne doesn't claim to be a religious organization, but what he teaches, er, I mean sells, is religious (though he might object to the pedestrian term "religious", which he's grown beyond--he's spiritual). A good test for the authenticity of religious or spiritual teachings or organizations is at what point they ask you, the seeker, for money. All religious organizations need money to operate, but if they ask for cash during your first meeting at their church/synagogue/mosque/temple/website, you should turn and leave. And that's exactly what you should do with Dr. Wayne.

Look out for Dr. Wayne's next astounding book: How I Made Millions Spouting Quasi-Religious Drivel to a Depressed and Maleable Public, and How You Can Too!

US Open at Pinehurst.

2005-06-14T20:48:00.000-07:00

You know what I'd like to see? I'd love to see Phil Mickelson and Vijay Sighn--or "Veej", as he's known to me and all his good buds--go at it mano-a-mano. Who do you think would win? They're both big guys, so it would be an epic fight. Veej might know some kind of special fighting technique from Fiji. In fact, that blue ball he's holding may be a war version of a coconut--a battle coconut. Veej probably learned the coconut fighting technique when he learned to defend himself from jocks in Fiji. Phil and the other hand went to college at Arizona State, so he probably knows how to throw his weight around in a bar amidst lots of drunk frat dudes. I'll give the edge to Philly.

Another good fight would be Tiger Woods and Fred Funk. Tiger thinks he's tough, but an old man like Funk would surprise him. Wouldn't that be great if Tiger tried to start shit with Fred and Fred popped him real quick in the nose, and Tiger's like, "Mother fucker--that hurt. Steve, drop the bag and kick his ass." "Duh, okay boss, okay. I'll hit him real good, I will make fall onto his back." Steve lunges at Fred, but he pulls a few moves this guy, and puts Stevie down for the count. C'mon, Tiger is such a pathetic show-off, that he's just begging for it. The universe is begging for it--balance must be restored!

In any event, here's how their fight might play out.
Anyway, if any of this came to pass, at least we'd have something to talk about other than a bunch of golf pros complaining about bowl-shaped greens and false fronts.

Disclaimer: Wounded Duck (c), its subsidiaries and corporate officers do not, nor ever shall, endorse violence in golf or any of the "stick and ball" sports, i.e., tennis, baseball, hockey, hai-alai, lacross, stickball, and toru-bungo (a game played in the Chimbu province of Papau New Guinea with whale rib bones and boiled chicken heads.) However, any sport classified as "foot and ball" is free to bathe in as much competitors blood as possible.

The joy of using used

2005-06-13T07:53:00.000-07:00

Why do guys buy new clubs? The only clubs I've ever bought new were two Cleveland wedges. It was at least ten years ago, and I regretted the decision only after I discovered Roger Dunn Golf (this site links to Roger Dunn and a few other retailers in the Cal and the Southwest--sorry Mid-West and East Coasters.) Unlike cars, which truly depreciate after use, golf clubs, excpet for maybe softer forged blades, never actaully degrade. Sure, they depreciate because the brainwashed mass of golfers think this year's model is markedly superior to any other year's model, but that doesn't mean any year's model is less effective. You retirees and those with a little more disposable cash than me might ask, "Why should I buy clubs that have been de-flowered previously by a stranger?" Good point.

If you're in your twilight years and want to splurge on yourself, why not? I would. If you're rich and figure, "I've worked hard and earned these new, shiny clubs!" again I say, go for it. The only question worth asking is, "What will these new clubs get you?" I know single-digit handicappers who still play PING Eye 2s. Are you really going to play better with the newest of the new? To be honest, I have no idea. I can easily imagine that if and when I have enough extra income to buy new clubs I will. If you go to the PING website and ask the following:

Question: Which PING model is more forgiving?
Answer: The new G2 irons are the most forgiving PING iron ever made. Prior to the G2 Series, the ISI-K was most forgiving, followed closely by the Zing2. (Note from Wounded Duck: because PING says the Zing 2 is the result of asthetic improvements to the original Zing, you can also consider Zings are very forgiving.)

So, the real question to ask is: what do you really need to play your best? Not: what clubs do I need to feel good about myself or my retirement. Then again, you have to accept my contention that golf is played exclusively for the chance to improve, and not, for instance, companionship or comraderie. If you play golf in order to one-up your buddies with new equipment, then by all means, go buy whatever you want. Just remember, if you're playing for score, you don't have to buy the latest, greatest.

In conclusion, here is an artist's rendering of a supernova:

and Chevy's rendition:

Jobs, time, life, and golf--a winning combination!

2005-06-11T08:03:00.000-07:00

Wounded Duck just got a new job--what a hap-hap-happy day! Good-bye temp jobs, hello benefits. Problem is, the new job is going to be a real time hole. It's in television production, and the hours will be longggggggg, which means golf is about to be de-prioitized. The loss of golf time is not a tragedy in and of itself (if I play three times a month I start feeling life a range rat, so my golf threshhold is low) but what is a tragedy is that I just re-re-re-figured out my swing. And, hold on to your butts, I found my swing while carpet swinging. I know, I know. But it does go to the meta-point of these writings that you have to be willing to realize that you never get to own your swing, you only rent it from time to time. Same goes for golf swing advice--sometimes it works and is brilliant, and sometimes it doesn't work and is brilliant

Image courtesy of rightbrain-leftbrain.com.

So I don't want to lose my re-re-re-discovered swing. How am I going to maintain it? Attention! That's right, I'm going to maintain attention on the progress I have made and hopefully whatever winning sensation I have of my swing will hang around for a while.

But if I do lose the winning sensation, there will be no worries because I know it'll be right around the corner--sometime, somewhere.

Vintage my ass.

2005-06-08T06:30:00.000-07:00

Over the weekend I played golf as a single and got paired with a Chinese guy, Paul, who spoke little English. Trying to bridge the language gap, we managed to find common ground in the topic of my clubs, my PING Zings. Paul said he onced owned PINGs and that mine were a wonderful "vintage" set. Vintage? They're only 15 years old. I could buy the vintage status of my clubs if perhaps they had something like "Al Geiberger" or "Gene Sarazen" stamped into them or even if they were Eye 2s. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the whole thing, maybe Paul thought "vintage" meant not-so-old-but-I-respect-your-commitment-to-a-classic-set? Wait--did I just say "classic"? Oh, who am I kidding--he knew 10 words of English and probably went out of his way to include "vintage" in his vocabulary just to chide guys like me who never trade-in and trade-up. But I suppose it shouldn't be surprising he felt as he did, what with the way clubs are marketed. Golfers have somehow been convinced that a 3 year old driver is woefully obsolete when compared to this year's model. What's the difference between a 260 yard drive and a 270 yard drive?

Have I lost my mind? I need the extra 7.3 yards per drive of the Taylor Made R4. Cash in the college fund honey, papa needs a new club.

Ditch clubs, get thee to a theater.

2005-06-07T07:56:00.000-07:00

Do yourself a huge favor--take next Saturday off from golf. Grab your significant other, and run to the nearest movie theater and watch Mad Hot Ballroom. The film is more entertaining than any 5 of Woody Allens' last movies, all 3 of the Star Wars prequels and all but 2 episodes of the last season of the Simpsons.

Outside the box? I don't need no stinking box!

2005-06-04T09:30:00.000-07:00

Good golf, and for that matter , good life, good everything, comes in large part from losing your preconceptions, such as "Golf should be played like I see on T.V.," or "I as a golfer should make no bad shots," or "I as a person should be thus and such." Golf shouldn't be anything. Golf is simply the process of swinging the club. If you add anything more to the equation, you're doomed to disappoinment. Relax, I'm not preaching nihilism.

But, golf is hardly the only area of life where this approach applies. Take movies. The big studios in Hollywood make 99% of their films from a conventional preconception about what movies audiences want to see. Ergo, the Summer Blockbuster. To combat this, might I recommend an unconventional movie, The American Astronaut. I won't pontificate now on why I think this film is worthy of widespread viewing, since I don't want to fill your head with unnecessary--yes, that's right--preconceptions. However, you'll never look at sand the same way again.

Dear PING, tell me again--how forgiving?

2005-06-04T08:15:00.000-07:00

Almost a year ago, venerable club geniuses PING released, as you undoubtedly have heard, a new iron called the G2. They say it's their most forgiving club ever. I'll make an off-hand observation, since I'm not an engineer (in fact, my math education stopped at the quadratic equation: F.O.I.L. (mnuemonically stated--First Outside Inside Last) which is used to calculate I-have-no-idea-what) and can't delve into M.O.I., C.G., torque, and what-not. Okay, I am qualified to comment on what-not, as during my last stint of unemployement I submitted a paper to the National Academy of Sciences on the typology and primogeniterology of what-not (not yet published) but I digress.

The G2 doesn't look like PING's previous line of irons, the bulbous Zing-ISI generations (herein referred to Z-I), which PING claimed were their most forgiving line of clubs. Firstly, the G2 looks nothing like the Z-I--no stainless steel tumors, now weird flanges, no Star Wars-esque rounded edges (can you picture Obi-Wan playing anything but PINGs?)

I am a long time player of Zings, so I just had to try the G2s for myself. So, I went down to my local Ping fitting center, a.k.a. the perpetually burnt/tanned/winded pro at the nearest driving range. Al is his name and he was a patient man. My wife and I (and no, we're a nerdly couple who have to play golf together or wear matching Ford windbreakers--for unknown reasons, she wanted to come along) spent over an hour with him. Naturally, I threw him a ten-spot as a tip when we finished, and he was so grateful, I feared he might asked us to be his son's godparents. So please remember to tip your service-industry professionals. When in doubt, tip--it's what separates us from the animals. I'd never been fitted before, and it was eye-opening. Firstly, and in contradiction to my long-held notions about myself as a golfer, I learned I'm not a black dot. I'm a green dot. Green! So, in the span of, oh, 12 seconds, I went from thinking black was cool, to thinking green is the color of victory. Easy enough transition. But the ball flight, my God, the ball flight! Straight, not too high, and did I say straight? Now, I'm not one to "work" the ball; in fact, it's usually me who's getting worked by it.

Hold on. I don't like the term "work." It implies a job, like working on an Excel spreadsheet. So from now on I'm going to call it... "playing" the ball? No, that sounds like I'm in a sandbox with the other kids burying my hand and then slowly freeing it from its sandy tomb, pretending it's a zombie hand. How about "curving"? No, that doesn't imply insider status--golf terminology should be esoteric. "Turning"? No. "Bending"?. Worse. "Deflect"? Horrible. "Arch"? Not bad. "Warp"? Getting closer. "Veer"? Not there yet. "Pervert"? Hold on. Again. "Pervert." That's it. Pervert the shot.

Now, as I was saying, I've never been one to try and pervert shots. Most times I'm happy to get the ball started in the correct general direction. But these G2s just made straight shot after straight shot. It's very gratifying. I know what you "players" out there are thinking. You're thinking "White or wheat with my eggs," because you sure as hell aren't reading this post. If you've never been a PING guy, and always thought their club's shape indicated their most likely use was to hoe weeds between rows of corn (or maize, if you will), the G2s look a lot more like what the resides in the collective psyche as "golf club." So give them a shot. Most courses or ranges that offer PING fitting allow you to apply the cost of the fitting towards purchase of clubs. These irons might one day make me confident enough to pervert shots at will.

Coming soon: Review of G2 woods and HL irons.

The Trouble of Man's Existence, Part II

2005-06-01T17:39:00.000-07:00

I can add nothing more.

Golf club reviews make me feel yucky.

2005-05-31T13:43:00.000-07:00

My wife got me a subscription to Golf Magazine for Christmas (she's always trying to make me happy, god bless her!) and the magazine is alone worth its price for the regular article of ubermensch David Feherty . But one thing that is just a little weird about the mag is its annual golf club review issue. Now, aside from the fact that a golf magazine which reviews the goods of companies that contribute a good chunk of said magazine's ad revenues seems like a conflict of interest (and could explain why they never even get within a hair's breadth of issuing a lukewarm review of any major manufacturer's clubs (or could be because the clubs are good, you decide (and I am NOT backtracking))) the reviews themselves are occasionally a little creepy.

Creepy how?

Well, there seems to be a smattering of... shall we say, orgasmic imagery. To wit, from the Golf Online site:

"This is an all-around quality club. It has an absolutely lovely feel--pucker up honey!"--Stephen Wills (14 [handicap])

"Oh, my. Does this feel heavenly."--Don Wilson (15[handicap])

"A stud from the rough."--Jeremy Ross (7[handicap])

And sometimes not so subtle: "Like kissing your cousin--pleasant and respectful but devoid of passion."--Kirk Fisher (8 [handicap])

What is going on here? Golf is fun, clubs are neat, but are my clubs studs? I think not. A person may be a stud, but not clubs.

Might there be a sociological phenomena occurring here? Group-think, anyone? These club testers have been chosen from among thousands of applicants, they spend every minute together eating, practicing, playing, smoking cigars, etc., etc. The more you look at it, the more it looks like a male bonding ritual, something akin to a sweat lodge. A-ha! Yes, it all makes sense. The testers, without the civilizing influence of women, revert to a simpler kind of man, a man more in touch with his primal urges. Hence, what better projection could there be for male virility than--c'mon, I know you're way ahead of me on this--the phallic golf club. And a DRIVER, no less. It's a return to nature, an embrace of our Paleolithic forebearers. Guys with big cigars, a graphite rod in their hands. Oh, this is too good--I'm not a doctor, but JAMA's got to publish this.

Now that I understand where these men are coming from, I no longer feel yucky reading those double entendres about kissing cousins and heavenly sensations. My fears are gone. Golfers are manly men, striving in an almost poetic way, for the life that seems to elude Modern Man. They are heroes reaching into our shared past, hoping to emerge with some kind of autheticity among the spider's web of compromise and homogenization which characterizes so much of our modern life. God I love golf!

Swing plane mania.

2005-05-27T22:11:00.000-07:00

I know the world is going a little nuts over Jim Hardy's two-plane/one-plane swing theory, but damn, it and its variants seem to have some value. Here's another guy who, in a similar fashion to Jim Dunigan (who I mentioned in my first post which now has a fine layer of dust on it from having never been disturbed by human eyes) who has been extoling the virtues of a swing-plane-centric theory of golf, tries to simplify the swing so we don't have to think about the damn thing so much (trust me, the foregoing sentence is grammatically correct, if unweildy).

For myself, I realized I'm a one-planer (1P'er) and with a little work (and let me stress "little"--if I can't get this stuff right in a once-a-week practice session then screw it) I hope to straighten this whole golf thing out.

Who was that guy?

2005-05-26T15:33:00.000-07:00

Ever go to the range and hit the ball like an absolute genius? The skill just comes out of nowhere and like BAM! you drill flush shot after flush shot. And you know a few dudes have been watching, thinking, "Damn, that's a good swing." It's like you've left your body because you're not even thinking about golf, or swinging, or anything. You're simply a force of nature.

Then, of course, a few days later you head to your fav course, thinking you've got the game licked. You tee the ball up, go to that place inside yourself where you think all good shots emanate from, take the club back and FWACK! The ball jumps off the toe of your driver, sputters to the right about 100 yards, takes out an innocent pigeon, disappears into the forest, rattles around for a few seconds before vanishing behind the event horizon of impenetrable brush. Behind you, you think you hear someone whisper, "Damn that guy's swing sucks."

What happened? Hell, I don't know. Maybe (_insert your deity of choice_) gave you a break and smiled on your from where ever he/she/it resides. Maybe you deluded yourself into thinking you were better than you really are.

"Hold on," you say, "I am that good. I have proof--remember me at the range, the jealous gawkers in the stalls next to me. They liked me, they really liked me!"

Yeah, I remember you at the range, but that was only one day. You didn't think that you would play like that forever, did you? Please, tell me you didn't. It's okay. You can trust me. C'mon, admit it--you thought you had conquered golf forever. Ah, you poor, poor, sad, hairless monkey. Why do the good have to die so young, why do they have to be deceived into thinking a day--one good day at the range--can last forever? (and no, those are not song lyrics from Air Supply.)

If it's any consolation, remeber that we've all done it. We've all been stupid enough--no, make that hopeful enough--to dream we'd finally climbed the mountain, that our flag, now firmly planted on the summit, would remain there day after day, weekend after weekend, 19th hole after 19th hole. If you had only turned back once as you descended the mountain, you would have seen that the flag was gone before you even put it up.

So just accept that sometimes, and unfortunately, at the range when no one is watching and there's nothing on the line, you play great. And sometimes you play lousy. That's why (_insert your deity of choice here_) invented beer.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Bloody rotten game!

2005-05-25T16:37:00.000-07:00

As to be expected from a game that consists primarily of paradoxes, here's the most recent golf paradox.

Despite drastic technological improvements in clubs and balls, the score for the average golfer for 18 holes is still about 100 strokes. Check it out. (Thanks to for the heads-up.) Of course, the upside is that if you can break 100, you're better than average.

Why carpet swinging doesn't work

2005-05-25T09:33:00.000-07:00

The scene: Ohio in the dead of winter. The setting: you, in your living room, 7 iron in hand, the Mercedes Championship on the tube. Your thought process: I'm going to fix my swing, here, in this room, with Joe Durant (and who doesn't know who Joe Durant is!) hitting his drive on #17 in the Mercedes, while all my golf opponents, nay, soon-to-be-embarrased golf buddies lay on their couches watching football like hibernating, drunken bears.

You make some swings with your trusty 7 iron, and damn it, it feels good. Maybe this is the swing, the one which could, after years and years of struggle, do some damage on the course, when, in the three months, the ice sheet that is Ohio in winter recedes, exposing the compacted earth of Spring.

Fast forward: the scene: the ice sheet has receded back to the Arctic Circle, and you're at your first golf outing. Birds fritter here and there, butterflies dance through the air and you are a golfing god. After talking shit to, at the very least, yourself (and hopefully not anyone else, especially the actual good players in your group) you mosey up to the tee, fully confident that the swing you worked on so hard in the living room over the past months is going to deliver not only a hell of a shot, but the shot of the group. And here's where you can guess the rest. The shot sucks, your wee-wee shrivels up into a fleshy ball of humiliation, and you crawl back to the cart, hoping not to disturb, or otherwise be noticed by your playing partners.

How did this happen? How did all your hard work turn into so much insubstantial fluff? It's very simple to answer that question, but it ain't pretty, and, in our world of egoism, not easy to accept, but it's all about the power of the mind to delude it's user.

And the cure is even harder to accept, but here goes: accept that you suck. That's right, you suck, and there isn't any getting around it. You can buy every swing aid in the world and use them in your winter training facility--the living room--until your head bursts with confidence. Once on the actual tee, the only place where you can really judge your skill, you will revert to whatever skill level you had before all the practice, and your mind will say, "Oh, right, this is how I play golf, and not how I kidded myself all winter long."

Instead of wasting time swinging that 7 iron in the living room, try this instead. "How can visualizing my swing be better than actually making a swing?" you ask, ever vigilant reader. The difference is that when you practice your swing in your head, as far as your head is concerned, you're really doing it. But when you swing away in the house, you're really making fake swings; that is, swings which aren't hitting a ball, and therefore give you no feedback as to what you're doing right or wrong. The visualized swing, however, hits the ball perfect every time, which, contrary to conventional thinking, is the best practice any of us could have. Here's a little experiment you can try. For one week, do your normal practice routine. Go to the range, pound your 50 or 100 balls as often as you normally do (and if you want to really test this out, go ahead and throw in a few extra sessions) and play your normal round that weekend. For the next week, ditch your normal routine, and instead try this: plunk down in a comfortable chair, close your eyes, and visualize 50 perfects shots. Take about 15 minutes to do all 50 shots, then open your eyes and go on about your business. Then go play your usual weekend round, and compare the results.

Now if your read this paragraph, you'll invalidate the results of the experiment because it suggests a possible outcome. The single blind will have been violated. Egads! But, if you don't play better after the second week than the first, I'll eat my

Post the First: The Problem of Man's existence

2005-05-24T14:10:00.000-07:00

Firstly, this is primarily a golf blog, but as is often the case in sports' performance issues, lessons learned here often translate into other areas of life. And, oh, do not in any way confuse Wounded Duck (a golf term for a struggling shot) with Henrik Ibsen's "The Wild Duck" . Now, I know this first post is a lofty title for a golf post, I know, but it nonetheless points to the essential problem of golf. "How so?" you say, dear reader. I shall attempt to explain.
Since time immemorial, mankind has been confronted with the same fundamental Problem, which can be framed in the question, WHO AM I? Good question.

Luckily, mankind's great thinkers--Jesus, Buddha, Harvey Keitel, Johnny Miller--have pointed, in their various and sundry ways, to a solution to the Problem, which, stated bluntly, is: only when the ego is disengaged can the Self express itself. "Self-schmelf," you say? Check this out. This isn't bad either. Once the ego goes by-by, men do things like write Macbeth or the Moonlight Sonata, come up with e=mc2, etc., etc. We, as golfers, express this when we shoot a score out of our minds, a score we knew we were capable of but never could seem to achieve because our ego was in the way.

"Listen buddha-boy, you're starting to annoy me with all this esoteric crap. Golf isn't this complicated, dig?" Dig I do. The solution to the aforementioned Problem is what allows us, as golfers, to play our best. But don't worry, I'm not going to ask you to convert to (_insert your religion of choice here_). This is about using the best swing and equipment to bring that egoless golf state into existence. It's been said ad naseum (Latin for "I've heard this so many times from so many guys like Peter Kostis, Dave Pelz, and Hank Haney that if I hear it again I'm going to puke thick black bile all over myself"), that having a quiet mind during your golf shot is essential, but, and here's the rub, so is using the right clubs and right swing. Here's where I take a huge turn away from the above mind stuff and head crashing and screaming into the golf stuff, because what I'm going to achieve here on this blog is the separation of the wheat from the chaffe, the mice from the men, the men from the boys, the shit from the Shinola, the talk from the walk, the hype from the truth. In a word, I will find what clubs work, and which don't, which ones make golf easier for y'all, and which make you wish you could get your old set back from the guy you sold them to on Ebay.

Firstly, here's a great little lesson on how to
swing the club. This may not seem like much, but it's the same thing Tiger Woods has been working on, plus it's simple so simple to understand that if you video tape yourself you can tell if you're doing it right.

To summarize: Jesus, egoless, probably a good golfer; to not suck at golf, can't care about yourself during the act of swinging; good equipment can aid in egoless golf, i.e., Y.P.B. (Your Personal Best).

I'll post club playability results from PING, TaylorMade, Cleveland Golf, Wilson Staff, and others. Until then, take it easy on yourself and play great.