Golf transcendence

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!

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?

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

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

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

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!

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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..."

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.

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"

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

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...

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

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

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."