clipped Gawd that was gross. Mike, speak your mind and ‘protect the field’ as all good golfers always will.

What was gross? I don’t agree with the comments about Mike Dalecki but the rest of it was just saying that anyone should be allowed to describe what things helped them whether they play of scatch or have just played one round. At times there appears to me to be an attitude of ‘we must defend the newbie from reading such utter rubbish in case it destroys their game’. Any advice given here is free and as such should be taken with a liberal pinch of salt. So in short the poster was defending freedom of speech – is that objectionable? This is a discussion group – yes you can disagree but to imply that only ‘good instruction’ is allowed reeks of policing. And what field needs protected by all good golfers?

Response:

Tournament field. Every single player has the responsibility of protecting the field meaning you are responsible for yourself and any other competitors playing by the ROG.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And what field needs protected by all good golfers?

Response:

I cannot shake my suspicion that your agenda is to control the direction of the discussion here for financial reasons.  You know, get back to which shafts are the best, how to install them, make it sound *real* technical…provide your email address and web site in case somebody "wants to contact" you.

Well, *that* was certainly a cheap and highly unwarranted shot. I’ve had discussions with Mike about various pieces of golf equipment and I find his "sales pressure" just about nil. I even remember when Mike was raving about the performance of the  Bang-O-Matic driver a while back when someone replied in that thread and asked, "Where can I get one????" You know what that evil, smarmy, greedy Mike Dalecki did? He gave them a link to a competitor: Low Pro Golf. (I know, I followed the link and bookmarked the site). My view of Mike is that he’s an equipment junkie who has undertaken a heck of a lot of research and thus made himself extremely well-informed on the subject. If he feels like telling us something about equipment, I’m sure as hell going to read what he says. I’d put a lot more stock in that than some anonymous poster telling us that the Holy Grail of the golf swing is to attempt to hit the ball off the hosel. But back to the larger point about golf tips in general… I’m in complete agreement that building a swing based on a mish-mash of tips is entirely the wrong way to go. In fact here’s something I posted on RSG a couple of years ago in response to someone seeking "THE CURE TO A BANANA BALL": "I’d strongly recommend you pick up and thoroughly read a copy of Jack Nicklaus’ book "Golf My Way". I’m sure you get many "helpful" tips from this group as well as the never-ending stream of instructional articles in the monthly magazines, but gimmicky bandaid solutions are no way to build a solid, reliable golf swing." I completely ignore tips because I find them extremely COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.  If people want to post such stuff here they undoubtedly have every right to do so, but I think people who read such advice and try to incorporate it into their swings are doing themselves a big disservice. How has ignoring all this "valuable advice" affected MY game? Well, somehow I’ve managed to have a single-digit handicap since 1976. What’s yours, jm? Ray Pezzi Traverse City, MI

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I had no problem understanding what the poster meant.  I tried what he or she said and it worked for me.  So I guess for me, it was productive in that it helped me get better.  Even if I didn’t get better, I still would like a chance to try an idea.  I think your response stifles bringing ideas to the table. I think people should have the opportunity to try something, or at CW How many days have you been using it?  Four?  Five?   How much has your handicap dropped? I’m fascinated by this phenomenon.  A mystery poster posts a very suspect set of instructions masquerading as a "tip."  There are demonstrable reasons why he, and the instructions, are suspect. Then, a couple people who have *never* posted to RSG before weigh in with their endorsements, once again not explaining who they are, what level of improvement they’ve achieved, nor how long they’ve been using the method. Yeah, I believe. I also believe in Santa Claus.  

You are a complete ass you have destroyed RSG you and your bumpkins Omnipotent you of RSG every post must pass your muster You who know virtually nothing of the golf swing You the hacker who can barely break 80 on a rinky dink golf course You posted your tips in your time that time is passed You have had your fill so off with their ‘eads you have decreed The reason you and yours post to RSG is to be usenet tinpots Opress with the fact no one else is as loony as you Do us all a favor and go away no one needs you here You won’t we know you are too small for that

Response:

"as all good golfers always will."

Response:

I had no problem understanding what the poster meant.  I tried what he or she said and it worked for me.  So I guess for me, it was productive in that it helped me get better.  Even if I didn’t get better, I still would like a chance to try an idea.  I think your response stifles bringing ideas to the table. I think people should have the opportunity to try something, or at CW

How many days have you been using it?  Four?  Five?   How much has your handicap dropped? I’m fascinated by this phenomenon.  A mystery poster posts a very suspect set of instructions masquerading as a "tip."  There are demonstrable reasons why he, and the instructions, are suspect. Then, a couple people who have *never* posted to RSG before weigh in with their endorsements, once again not explaining who they are, what level of improvement they’ve achieved, nor how long they’ve been using the method. Yeah, I believe. I also believe in Santa Claus.   Mike Mike Dalecki     GCA Accredited Clubmaker      http://clubdoctor.com RSG-Wisconsin 2003 Information:  http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2003 RSG Roll Call:  http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=daleckim I do not patronize spammers.  Help keep RSG clean!  

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Tried the – Hit with the hosel drill -.Half a dozen balls to get the feel another half dozen to be confident my ball striking-with my irons- is better than ever 14hcp. If you dont like dont try-I await any other thoughts/drills from Anon. (snipped) : :I find this odd.  In my view of community, if someone tries to mislead :people–and newbies are easy to mislead, by virtue of the fact that they :can’t yet tell the wheat from the chaff–then we should point that out. :But it’s clear that some don’t want that message. : :Mike : Mike, it’s not your job to protect the innocent.  We’re all adults here. There’s lots of good information about swinging a golf club available, books, tapes, magazines and even postings on this newsgroup.  I’ve learned good stuff from all these sources and I’ve taken golf lessons too. I cannot shake my suspicion that your agenda is to control the direction of the discussion here for financial reasons.  You know, get back to which shafts are the best, how to install them, make it sound *real* technical…provide your email address and web site in case somebody "wants to contact" you. Do the students in your classes have to have degrees in the subjects under discussion to offer their opinions on them?  I hope the answer to that is *no, they don’t* – otherwise your classes might just be a burdonsome blanket of conventional wisdom that new ideas never penetrate.  I don’t think you need to be a scratch handicap or a pga member to have valid opinions on golf.  Maybe a 90 shooter has a great technique for the flop shot, who the hell knows?  I’m game to hear it and evaluate it for myself. I do not believe that you are trying to protect the "simple minded innocents" from poor quality swing advice. If you are sold on golf lessons then fine – good for you.  I think you are crossing some kind of line though, by promoting the idea that only card carrying pga members have any useful information on how to swing a golf club.  That’s simply not true.  It also dissuades some 90 shooter who is getting his slice under control from explaining to us how he did it.  I’m interested in hearing what he has to say. I stand for freedom of speech in this newsgroup and I’m not selling *anything*.  If some guy has some theory of how to correct a slice and is willing to take the time to try to explain it then I think he deserves credit.  Maybe he’s on to something that will help someone out there.  Who knows.  In any event it’s not the worst thing for all golfers to evaluate different ideas and see if their own ideas are better or worse.  At the very least it is interesting stuff – "hey Johnny Miller says…". Don’t be so smarmy, condescending and evil, Mike.  That would be condescending because you think there are lesser intellects out here that need protecting.  Evil because you have a financial interest in directing discussion back to your own special interests. Smarmy because you purport to have the interests of the simple folk in mind rather than your own. Have a good day. Merry Christmas to all my fellow pilgrims on rec.sport.golf jmkanes Gawd that was gross. Mike, speak your mind and ‘protect the field’ as all good golfers always will.

Response:

I had no problem understanding what the poster meant.  I tried what he or she said and it worked for me.  So I guess for me, it was productive in that it helped me get better.  Even if I didn’t get better, I still would like a chance to try an idea.  I think your response stifles bringing ideas to the table. I think people should have the opportunity to try something, or at CW

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Okay, you state that it is crap to try to hit the ball with the hosel. Why? Well, I don’t think I said that, but I sure think it. There’s a number of reasons.  In no particular order: 1.  "OK folks.  Here is the golf tip of the year.  Better yet, the best tip in the history of RSG. Follow this and you will learn how to hit better shots." As quoted in his "Xmas" post.  Any time people make such statements as absolutes, run the other way.  There is no "one size fits all" advice for the golf swing. 2.  "start your swing with the hosel directed at the ball." Oh really?  How on earth does one do that?  "Start your swing"? Sheesh.  Is this setup?  At the top of the swing?  Pointing the shaft directly at the ball? Anybody who really was a golf pro, who really gave lessons to people, would recognize how this could be misinterpreted and would have made much clearer what the directions are.  That they did not means they left out just enough to be misinterpreted in any number of ways. 3.  "The toe of the club should be 180 degrees from the ball."  What on earth does that mean?  Depending on how you interpret this, it means the blade is pointing 180 degrees from target, 90 degrees from target away from you, even 90 degrees from target TOWARD you.  Which is right? None of them, of course. 4.  "If you pivot properly and get your body properly into the swing, you will hit the sweet spot of the clubface and not the hosel." This is a red herring.  "If you pivot properly…"  Oh really?  And where in the tip are we learning to do this?  Nowhere, of course. "…and get your body properly into the swing…"  Oh really?   And where in the tip are we learning to do this? It’s clear that, according to the poster, you need some other elements in your swing for this to work.  Nowhere is that explained, nor is it made clear how you acquire those elements if you don’t have them. Ergo, the "tip" is not one size fits all.  How good is it then, in the context of "this is the best tip in the history of RSG"? Now all of those are indications that this is crap.  But the one that really needs to be said, is that one of the biggest horrors a golfer can get is a case of the sh*nks.  That’s hitting the ball, unintentionally, with the hosel, causing the ball to squirt away from the golfer in the direction he’s facing. So what does this "anonymous" tipster tell us to try to do?  To try to sh*nk the ball! I wouldn’t try this tip for anything; clearly, from what I’ve demonstrated above, what’s being presented is crap.  Maybe there is a drill something like this that might be useful for specific swing flaws, but to assume this is the answer just because some nimrod says so is taking a big risk with your swing. The last thing in the world I’d do is practice sh*nking the ball. CW, that’s why. Mike PS:  In some parts, it is considered rude to use the word I’m asterisking out above.  For some golfers, the mere mention of the word can sometimes bring on the beast itself.  So I blip out a vowel.  BTW, that vowel is an "a". <clip See a pro.  IMO, you’re not going to learn a swing on RSG, and you’ll waste a lot of time trying stuff out until you discover that for yourself. I figure it cost me 2+ years in my development as a golfer, reading the swing threads on RSG and thinking they would hold the key to my improvement. My improvement coincided with my ignoring swing tips, golf magazines, and RSG swing mechanics threads.  Oh, I know, those things can be seductive, but in the final analysis, ask yourself (and others!) how many  tips they’ve received that have been truly valuable and have remained with them for all time. Mike True – go and see a pro if you need help. Practice when you are playing well and see a pro when you ain’t (ok so that’s a bit simple). But I wouldn’t suppress any discussion on swing theory. Nobody’s suppressing anything.  Besides, how would one do that? It’s only discussion. One of the troubles here was that several people took themselves too seriously. They wanted to be RSG gurus but had they any credentials? That’s one of the underlying issues in using RSG as a resource.  You have to evaluate the veracity of the claims that are made.  That only happens over time. A great example is the "Xmas present, a tip that finally works" and the "hit the ball with the hosel" threads.  The poster–who posted under "Anonymous"–claims to be a pro, won some minor tourneys, etc. Well, I don’t believe that.  If he really believed what he said, he wouldn’t hide behind a veil of anonymity, afraid to allow his real name to be associated with his expressed ideas.  It’s clear from the fact that end of the message included this wonderfully validating tagline: "This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services." Oh, really?  Who is so in need of hiding their identity that they need to go through two anonymous remailing services?  Nobody whose advice you can trust, that’s for sure. So, hopefully, people caught that, and discounted the advice.  They also should have discounted it for the quality of advice, but for a newby, that’s not so easy to discern–how do you tell what’s crap, which that was, and what’s not crap? And I didn’t comment on it in that thread simply because it was clear from much of the commentary in response to my recent thread titled "A swing mechanics thread for those who really want to improve" that there are a lot of people who want that "advice," regardless of how silly it is. Take everything here as a discussion – it’s only fun…..nobody should be criticised for saying what they think or what helped them etc. I agree.  The argument can, however, be criticized for its quality. But there is nothing to be gained by listening to any of it and trying to adapt it. Well, you’re certainly not going to find me disagreeing with that, Mickey.  :) What’s funny about this whole thing is that many view RSG as a type of community (which, in one way, it is).  But when, in the interests of community, people try to point out what’s crap, they can be vilified for it. I find this odd.  In my view of community, if someone tries to mislead people–and newbies are easy to mislead, by virtue of the fact that they can’t yet tell the wheat from the chaff–then we should point that out. But it’s clear that some don’t want that message. Mike Mike Dalecki     GCA Accredited Clubmaker      http://clubdoctor.com RSG-Wisconsin 2003 Information:  http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2003 RSG Roll Call:  http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=daleckim I do not patronize spammers.  Help keep RSG clean! — Mike Dalecki     GCA Accredited Clubmaker      http://clubdoctor.com RSG-Wisconsin 2003 Information:  http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2003 RSG Roll Call:  http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=daleckim I do not patronize spammers.  Help keep RSG clean!

Response:

Tried the – Hit with the hosel drill -.Half a dozen balls to get the feel another half dozen to be confident my ball striking-with my irons- is better than ever 14hcp. If you dont like dont try-I await any other thoughts/drills from Anon.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (snipped) : :I find this odd.  In my view of community, if someone tries to mislead :people–and newbies are easy to mislead, by virtue of the fact that they :can’t yet tell the wheat from the chaff–then we should point that out. :But it’s clear that some don’t want that message. : :Mike : Mike, it’s not your job to protect the innocent.  We’re all adults here. There’s lots of good information about swinging a golf club available, books, tapes, magazines and even postings on this newsgroup.  I’ve learned good stuff from all these sources and I’ve taken golf lessons too. I cannot shake my suspicion that your agenda is to control the direction of the discussion here for financial reasons.  You know, get back to which shafts are the best, how to install them, make it sound *real* technical…provide your email address and web site in case somebody "wants to contact" you. Do the students in your classes have to have degrees in the subjects under discussion to offer their opinions on them?  I hope the answer to that is *no, they don’t* – otherwise your classes might just be a burdonsome blanket of conventional wisdom that new ideas never penetrate.  I don’t think you need to be a scratch handicap or a pga member to have valid opinions on golf.  Maybe a 90 shooter has a great technique for the flop shot, who the hell knows?  I’m game to hear it and evaluate it for myself. I do not believe that you are trying to protect the "simple minded innocents" from poor quality swing advice. If you are sold on golf lessons then fine – good for you.  I think you are crossing some kind of line though, by promoting the idea that only card carrying pga members have any useful information on how to swing a golf club.  That’s simply not true.  It also dissuades some 90 shooter who is getting his slice under control from explaining to us how he did it.  I’m interested in hearing what he has to say. I stand for freedom of speech in this newsgroup and I’m not selling *anything*.  If some guy has some theory of how to correct a slice and is willing to take the time to try to explain it then I think he deserves credit.  Maybe he’s on to something that will help someone out there.  Who knows.  In any event it’s not the worst thing for all golfers to evaluate different ideas and see if their own ideas are better or worse.  At the very least it is interesting stuff – "hey Johnny Miller says…". Don’t be so smarmy, condescending and evil, Mike.  That would be condescending because you think there are lesser intellects out here that need protecting.  Evil because you have a financial interest in directing discussion back to your own special interests. Smarmy because you purport to have the interests of the simple folk in mind rather than your own. Have a good day. Merry Christmas to all my fellow pilgrims on rec.sport.golf jmkanes Gawd that was gross. Mike, speak your mind and ‘protect the field’ as all good golfers always will.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (snipped) : :I find this odd.  In my view of community, if someone tries to mislead :people–and newbies are easy to mislead, by virtue of the fact that they :can’t yet tell the wheat from the chaff–then we should point that out. :But it’s clear that some don’t want that message. : :Mike : Mike, it’s not your job to protect the innocent.  We’re all adults here. There’s lots of good information about swinging a golf club available, books, tapes, magazines and even postings on this newsgroup.  I’ve learned good stuff from all these sources and I’ve taken golf lessons too. I cannot shake my suspicion that your agenda is to control the direction of the discussion here for financial reasons.  You know, get back to which shafts are the best, how to install them, make it sound *real* technical…provide your email address and web site in case somebody "wants to contact" you. Do the students in your classes have to have degrees in the subjects under discussion to offer their opinions on them?  I hope the answer to that is *no, they don’t* – otherwise your classes might just be a burdonsome blanket of conventional wisdom that new ideas never penetrate.  I don’t think you need to be a scratch handicap or a pga member to have valid opinions on golf.  Maybe a 90 shooter has a great technique for the flop shot, who the hell knows?  I’m game to hear it and evaluate it for myself. I do not believe that you are trying to protect the "simple minded innocents" from poor quality swing advice. If you are sold on golf lessons then fine – good for you.  I think you are crossing some kind of line though, by promoting the idea that only card carrying pga members have any useful information on how to swing a golf club.  That’s simply not true.  It also dissuades some 90 shooter who is getting his slice under control from explaining to us how he did it.  I’m interested in hearing what he has to say. I stand for freedom of speech in this newsgroup and I’m not selling *anything*.  If some guy has some theory of how to correct a slice and is willing to take the time to try to explain it then I think he deserves credit.  Maybe he’s on to something that will help someone out there.  Who knows.  In any event it’s not the worst thing for all golfers to evaluate different ideas and see if their own ideas are better or worse.  At the very least it is interesting stuff – "hey Johnny Miller says…". Don’t be so smarmy, condescending and evil, Mike.  That would be condescending because you think there are lesser intellects out here that need protecting.  Evil because you have a financial interest in directing discussion back to your own special interests. Smarmy because you purport to have the interests of the simple folk in mind rather than your own. Have a good day. Merry Christmas to all my fellow pilgrims on rec.sport.golf jmkanes

Gawd that was gross. Mike, speak your mind and ‘protect the field’ as all good golfers always will.

Response:

(snipped) : :I find this odd.  In my view of community, if someone tries to mislead :people–and newbies are easy to mislead, by virtue of the fact that they :can’t yet tell the wheat from the chaff–then we should point that out. :But it’s clear that some don’t want that message. : :Mike : Mike, it’s not your job to protect the innocent.  We’re all adults here.   There’s lots of good information about swinging a golf club available, books, tapes, magazines and even postings on this newsgroup.  I’ve learned good stuff from all these sources and I’ve taken golf lessons too. I cannot shake my suspicion that your agenda is to control the direction of the discussion here for financial reasons.  You know, get back to which shafts are the best, how to install them, make it sound *real* technical…provide your email address and web site in case somebody "wants to contact" you. Do the students in your classes have to have degrees in the subjects under discussion to offer their opinions on them?  I hope the answer to that is *no, they don’t* – otherwise your classes might just be a burdonsome blanket of conventional wisdom that new ideas never penetrate.  I don’t think you need to be a scratch handicap or a pga member to have valid opinions on golf.  Maybe a 90 shooter has a great technique for the flop shot, who the hell knows?  I’m game to hear it and evaluate it for myself. I do not believe that you are trying to protect the "simple minded innocents" from poor quality swing advice.   If you are sold on golf lessons then fine – good for you.  I think you are crossing some kind of line though, by promoting the idea that only card carrying pga members have any useful information on how to swing a golf club.  That’s simply not true.  It also dissuades some 90 shooter who is getting his slice under control from explaining to us how he did it.  I’m interested in hearing what he has to say. I stand for freedom of speech in this newsgroup and I’m not selling *anything*.  If some guy has some theory of how to correct a slice and is willing to take the time to try to explain it then I think he deserves credit.  Maybe he’s on to something that will help someone out there.  Who knows.  In any event it’s not the worst thing for all golfers to evaluate different ideas and see if their own ideas are better or worse.  At the very least it is interesting stuff – "hey Johnny Miller says…". Don’t be so smarmy, condescending and evil, Mike.  That would be condescending because you think there are lesser intellects out here that need protecting.  Evil because you have a financial interest in directing discussion back to your own special interests. Smarmy because you purport to have the interests of the simple folk in mind rather than your own. Have a good day. Merry Christmas to all my fellow pilgrims on rec.sport.golf jmkanes

Response:

Okay, you state that it is crap to try to hit the ball with the hosel.  Why?

Well, I don’t think I said that, but I sure think it.   There’s a number of reasons.  In no particular order: 1.  "OK folks.  Here is the golf tip of the year.  Better yet, the best tip in the history of RSG. Follow this and you will learn how to hit better shots." As quoted in his "Xmas" post.  Any time people make such statements as absolutes, run the other way.  There is no "one size fits all" advice for the golf swing.   2.  "start your swing with the hosel directed at the ball." Oh really?  How on earth does one do that?  "Start your swing"? Sheesh.  Is this setup?  At the top of the swing?  Pointing the shaft directly at the ball?   Anybody who really was a golf pro, who really gave lessons to people, would recognize how this could be misinterpreted and would have made much clearer what the directions are.  That they did not means they left out just enough to be misinterpreted in any number of ways. 3.  "The toe of the club should be 180 degrees from the ball."  What on earth does that mean?  Depending on how you interpret this, it means the blade is pointing 180 degrees from target, 90 degrees from target away from you, even 90 degrees from target TOWARD you.  Which is right? None of them, of course. 4.  "If you pivot properly and get your body properly into the swing, you will hit the sweet spot of the clubface and not the hosel." This is a red herring.  "If you pivot properly…"  Oh really?  And where in the tip are we learning to do this?  Nowhere, of course. "…and get your body properly into the swing…"  Oh really?   And where in the tip are we learning to do this?     It’s clear that, according to the poster, you need some other elements in your swing for this to work.  Nowhere is that explained, nor is it made clear how you acquire those elements if you don’t have them. Ergo, the "tip" is not one size fits all.  How good is it then, in the context of "this is the best tip in the history of RSG"? Now all of those are indications that this is crap.  But the one that really needs to be said, is that one of the biggest horrors a golfer can get is a case of the sh*nks.  That’s hitting the ball, unintentionally, with the hosel, causing the ball to squirt away from the golfer in the direction he’s facing. So what does this "anonymous" tipster tell us to try to do?  To try to sh*nk the ball!   I wouldn’t try this tip for anything; clearly, from what I’ve demonstrated above, what’s being presented is crap.  Maybe there is a drill something like this that might be useful for specific swing flaws, but to assume this is the answer just because some nimrod says so is taking a big risk with your swing. The last thing in the world I’d do is practice sh*nking the ball. CW, that’s why. Mike PS:  In some parts, it is considered rude to use the word I’m asterisking out above.  For some golfers, the mere mention of the word can sometimes bring on the beast itself.  So I blip out a vowel.  BTW, that vowel is an "a". – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <clip See a pro.  IMO, you’re not going to learn a swing on RSG, and you’ll waste a lot of time trying stuff out until you discover that for yourself. I figure it cost me 2+ years in my development as a golfer, reading the swing threads on RSG and thinking they would hold the key to my improvement. My improvement coincided with my ignoring swing tips, golf magazines, and RSG swing mechanics threads.  Oh, I know, those things can be seductive, but in the final analysis, ask yourself (and others!) how many  tips they’ve received that have been truly valuable and have remained with them for all time. Mike True – go and see a pro if you need help. Practice when you are playing well and see a pro when you ain’t (ok so that’s a bit simple). But I wouldn’t suppress any discussion on swing theory. Nobody’s suppressing anything.  Besides, how would one do that? It’s only discussion. One of the troubles here was that several people took themselves too seriously. They wanted to be RSG gurus but had they any credentials? That’s one of the underlying issues in using RSG as a resource.  You have to evaluate the veracity of the claims that are made.  That only happens over time. A great example is the "Xmas present, a tip that finally works" and the "hit the ball with the hosel" threads.  The poster–who posted under "Anonymous"–claims to be a pro, won some minor tourneys, etc. Well, I don’t believe that.  If he really believed what he said, he wouldn’t hide behind a veil of anonymity, afraid to allow his real name to be associated with his expressed ideas.  It’s clear from the fact that end of the message included this wonderfully validating tagline: "This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services." Oh, really?  Who is so in need of hiding their identity that they need to go through two anonymous remailing services?  Nobody whose advice you can trust, that’s for sure. So, hopefully, people caught that, and discounted the advice.  They also should have discounted it for the quality of advice, but for a newby, that’s not so easy to discern–how do you tell what’s crap, which that was, and what’s not crap? And I didn’t comment on it in that thread simply because it was clear from much of the commentary in response to my recent thread titled "A swing mechanics thread for those who really want to improve" that there are a lot of people who want that "advice," regardless of how silly it is. Take everything here as a discussion – it’s only fun…..nobody should be criticised for saying what they think or what helped them etc. I agree.  The argument can, however, be criticized for its quality. But there is nothing to be gained by listening to any of it and trying to adapt it. Well, you’re certainly not going to find me disagreeing with that, Mickey.  :) What’s funny about this whole thing is that many view RSG as a type of community (which, in one way, it is).  But when, in the interests of community, people try to point out what’s crap, they can be vilified for it. I find this odd.  In my view of community, if someone tries to mislead people–and newbies are easy to mislead, by virtue of the fact that they can’t yet tell the wheat from the chaff–then we should point that out. But it’s clear that some don’t want that message. Mike Mike Dalecki     GCA Accredited Clubmaker      http://clubdoctor.com RSG-Wisconsin 2003 Information:  http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2003 RSG Roll Call:  http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=daleckim I do not patronize spammers.  Help keep RSG clean!

– Mike Dalecki     GCA Accredited Clubmaker      http://clubdoctor.com RSG-Wisconsin 2003 Information:  http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2003 RSG Roll Call:  http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=daleckim I do not patronize spammers.  Help keep RSG clean!  

Response:

there are two, or more ways of learning, ie; in a practical manner, and from observation, being two of them. I have also noticed that there are people  - who have trouble with both methods. ===== The poster of the "lag" tip classifies his post as a "new or

provocative theory" and then criticizes folks for not "accepting" it .. duh !!!. This is a group for *discussion*

==== (this below, is a re-post – initially presented as a logical / helpful issue, from all accounts) OK folks. Here is the golf tip of the year. Better yet, the best tip in the history of RSG. Follow this and you will learn how to hit better shots. On the downswing, you get power from lag. Lag is very important. Your hands must lead the swing. Very difficult to do or feel, however.

Watching a tape of the Jack Nicklaus’ win in the 1986 Masters recently and seeing the huge-headed putter he used reminded me that I’d once used a similar putter. I had been so inspired by seeing Jack make all those putts that I went out right after  that tournament and bought myself a Slotline Inertial Onset putter. The head was absolutely huge—and it was ahead of (not behind or even with) the shaft. I don’t remember what the concept was supposed to be…perhaps that the head would hit the ball before your hands could do something bad and throw your stroke offline. Anyway, it worked pretty well for a while– and then, as often happens with my putters, all the "magic" disappeared. That got me to thinking about other equipment gimmicks I’ve played over the years. They include: 1) MacGregor "featherweight" clubs–Had a full set of these back in the mid-’80’s. They had an extremely low swingweight (somewhere in the low "C" range, I think) with the idea being that it’d enable you to develop tremendous clubhead speed. Well, yes, it accomplished that– but there was almost no mass in the clubhead. You couldn’t get one of those irons to go through thick rough for anything, and as far as having any sense of where the clubhead was during your swing, forget it. Got rid of them and went happily back to my Wilson Staff FG-17’s. 2) Wilson reflex irons–Had a set of these in the early ’80’s. They featured a slot cut out behind the face, all the way from the top of the face right down to the sole. (See http://www.golf-maui.com/CLUBS/107Wilson.htm  if you want to see what I’m talking about.) I think the idea was to increase the spring effect of the clubface, but I never noticed any benefits from these. Sold them to a buddy who quickly cracked the faces on 2 of the clubs, rendering them unhittable. 3) The 1970’s version of the Wilson ProStaff ball (featuring the famous "truncated cone" dimples). Those unique dimples were supposed to give it a more stable flight and hey, Johnny Miller was doing commercials saying how much he loved it, so I played it. Then I went to a tournament where Johnny hooked one into the left rough that rolled right up to my feet. I peered down at the ball and quickly noticed the Titleist logo staring back up at me. 4) Neumann "tackified" glove–Had a couple of these back in the late ’80’s. Although you still see Neumann gloves on many receivers in the NFL, it appears they’ve departed from the golf glove business. After my experience with these, I can see why. The gloves were impregnated with some sort of tacky substance that was supposed to make your grip more secure. They acted like a magnet, though, for every speck of dirt and blade of grass. They didn’t breathe at all, so my hand was always soaked in sweat, far outweighing the ability of the tacky goo to give me any grip at all. Threw them away and went happily back to the Footjoy Sta-Sof. 5) The Spalding "Tour Edition" golf ball featuring the revolutionary Zinthane cover– I played these a lot in the late ’80’s, back when Greg Norman was supposedly playing the ball on tour. The idea was that the cover would allow you to put tremendous spin on the ball, even more than balata…and this is one gimmick that actually worked. I could back these up like no ball I’ve played before or since….it was easy (*far* too easy) to suck a wedge right back off the green. Unfortunately, though, they were very short off the tee in comparison to other balls. Worst of all, the cover had about zero durability. I was playing square-grooved Ping Eye 2’s back then and they really chewed up these balls. You’d hit down on a nice SW, walk up to the green and mark your ball, and try to gnaw off all these little shredded particles sticking up off the cover before it was your turn to putt. I wonder how much of that crap I accidentally swallowed and how much brain damage it caused….   I’m sure there are other equipment gimmicks that I’ve played and long since forgotten about, but there are some, believe it or not, that I resisted, too: remember the Orizaba Power Pod driver or the Bakaswerd (sp?) putter? So what about you guys? Any funny stories about equipment gimmicks you’ve tried? Ray Pezzi Traverse City, MI

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Watching a tape of the Jack Nicklaus’ win in the 1986 Masters recently and seeing the huge-headed putter he used reminded me that I’d once used a similar putter. I had been so inspired by seeing Jack make all those putts that I went out right after  that tournament and bought myself a Slotline Inertial Onset putter. The head was absolutely huge—and it was ahead of (not behind or even with) the shaft. I don’t remember what the concept was supposed to be…perhaps that the head would hit the ball before your hands could do something bad and throw your stroke offline. Anyway, it worked pretty well for a while– and then, as often happens with my putters, all the "magic" disappeared. That got me to thinking about other equipment gimmicks I’ve played over the years. They include: 1) MacGregor "featherweight" clubs–Had a full set of these back in the mid-’80’s. They had an extremely low swingweight (somewhere in the low "C" range, I think) with the idea being that it’d enable you to develop tremendous clubhead speed. Well, yes, it accomplished that– but there was almost no mass in the clubhead. You couldn’t get one of those irons to go through thick rough for anything, and as far as having any sense of where the clubhead was during your swing, forget it. Got rid of them and went happily back to my Wilson Staff FG-17’s. 2) Wilson reflex irons–Had a set of these in the early ’80’s. They featured a slot cut out behind the face, all the way from the top of the face right down to the sole. (See http://www.golf-maui.com/CLUBS/107Wilson.htm  if you want to see what I’m talking about.) I think the idea was to increase the spring effect of the clubface, but I never noticed any benefits from these. Sold them to a buddy who quickly cracked the faces on 2 of the clubs, rendering them unhittable. 3) The 1970’s version of the Wilson ProStaff ball (featuring the famous "truncated cone" dimples). Those unique dimples were supposed to give it a more stable flight and hey, Johnny Miller was doing commercials saying how much he loved it, so I played it. Then I went to a tournament where Johnny hooked one into the left rough that rolled right up to my feet. I peered down at the ball and quickly noticed the Titleist logo staring back up at me. 4) Neumann "tackified" glove–Had a couple of these back in the late ’80’s. Although you still see Neumann gloves on many receivers in the NFL, it appears they’ve departed from the golf glove business. After my experience with these, I can see why. The gloves were impregnated with some sort of tacky substance that was supposed to make your grip more secure. They acted like a magnet, though, for every speck of dirt and blade of grass. They didn’t breathe at all, so my hand was always soaked in sweat, far outweighing the ability of the tacky goo to give me any grip at all. Threw them away and went happily back to the Footjoy Sta-Sof. 5) The Spalding "Tour Edition" golf ball featuring the revolutionary Zinthane cover– I played these a lot in the late ’80’s, back when Greg Norman was supposedly playing the ball on tour. The idea was that the cover would allow you to put tremendous spin on the ball, even more than balata…and this is one gimmick that actually worked. I could back these up like no ball I’ve played before or since….it was easy (*far* too easy) to suck a wedge right back off the green. Unfortunately, though, they were very short off the tee in comparison to other balls. Worst of all, the cover had about zero durability. I was playing square-grooved Ping Eye 2’s back then and they really chewed up these balls. You’d hit down on a nice SW, walk up to the green and mark your ball, and try to gnaw off all these little shredded particles sticking up off the cover before it was your turn to putt. I wonder how much of that crap I accidentally swallowed and how much brain damage it caused….   I’m sure there are other equipment gimmicks that I’ve played and long since forgotten about, but there are some, believe it or not, that I resisted, too: remember the Orizaba Power Pod driver or the Bakaswerd (sp?) putter? So what about you guys? Any funny stories about equipment gimmicks you’ve tried? Ray Pezzi Traverse City, MI

RAY!!!!!  How’ve you been, man?  I haven’t seen your name pop up here for a long long time.  How are things up in Michigan?  I plan on heading up to Crystal Downs again next summer.  Are you going to be around?  We’ll chase the little while ball somewhere. I still remember the great time we had at Grand Traverse.   "Pflum, as in BOOM!"  LOL. — JVDP

Response:

Putters are no different from any other club. They continually require T L C  - if they are to remain responsive.;–) A mistake made often, is in the gripping of the putter. Try gripping with the thumb resting at the bottom edge of the grip. And with the eyes over the ball, followed with an equal swing distance of the putter; back / thru. It might work. The playing of golf is simple. The problem seems to be that there is too much read into it, more than can be handled, sometimes. The creeping of a little nostalgia into the daily happening makes one appreciate the past / present. However, I’m lost, I never fell for the gadgetry passing along the way.<s v

I have a Great Divider.  It’s great. One thing to remember about this type of bag: You can’t put it on an airplane.  That’s because you can’t turn the clubs upside down inside the bag for travel.  The openings are too small for club heads to fit into.  So you will have to buy a travel bag/cover.

Response:

Have you tried the PING Hoofer?

I have not, but I understand they’re comparable. Dallas Golf has a TON of Ebay auctions. I was able to win the bag and go down to their internet warehouse and pick up the bag to save on the shipping. Just interested to see if you could offer a comparrison.

I have the Ogio Probe. If you look at the website, mine is a probe in the "silver" which is actually a pale grey-to-almost-blue. Rather nice, actually, though I wanted a yellow one. Truthfully, what attracted me at first was the looks of the bag. They’re nicely designed, look and feel like a piece of athletic equipment rather than just a conveyance for the clubs. Sounds funny, I know, but the marketing department at Ogio nailed me on that. The build quality is really good. If you look at the stiching and stuff, everything is straight, lines up nicely, is durable. They offer a good warranty. But like I said, it was the details that impressed me. For example, they load up the tee holders for you. Probably cost them an extra nickel to do it, but it’s nice to have them and see how it’s all supposed to work. I’ve thought of a couple more modifications for the bag (removable "strapping" bracket for putting into a cart rack to sort of shim the bag and keep it straight) and a few others. But I’m pretty pleased with it.

Response:

I have a Great Divider.  It’s great. One thing to remember about this type of bag: You can’t put it on an airplane.  That’s because you can’t turn the clubs upside down inside the bag for travel.  The openings are too small for club heads to fit into.  So you will have to buy a travel bag/cover.

Hmmmm….it never occurred to me to drag my clubs into an airport without putting them in a travel bag.  I just took my clubs to Vegas last week and had a soft bag with a lot of padding around the heads and everything worked fine.  Probably I should have turned the heads around, but I’m not that smart.  File that also under "never occurred to me." I do find it interesting that it seems that hard sided cases are cheaper than soft sided.  Why’s that? Cheaper manufacturing costs? Bob Ontario, California

Response:

Which one did you buy? They have a bunch on the websight. Have you tried the PING Hoofer? Just interested to see if you could offer a comparrison. Thanks – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I’m rather impressed with the bags that Ogio has been putting out. I just bought a stand bag from them

Response:

I live near a golfsmith so I can buy in person.  You bring up a great point, bags have not kept pace with the rest of the game.

I’m rather impressed with the bags that Ogio has been putting out. I just bought a stand bag from them, but I’ve seen their cart bags and I quite like them – my next cart bag will be one of theirs. The club dividers are pretty good, and I like the way they seperate the woods and irons. Also quite a few other nice touches – the ball sleeve, the strap system, the soft pocket for valuables. The coolest thing, though, is the netted drink holder – it’s 90-degrees from vertical so when you’re carrying the bag, your water bottle is upright and easily accessed by your left hend. Little touches like this I appreciate. -b

Response:

If you have have the larger grips it is sometimes hard to get clubs out

Response:

If you ride a cart most of the time almost any divided "cart" bag will do the job. I do not know if Golfsmith has Bennington bags but their Organizer is great. It has the full length dividers as well as a "soft composite" top that each iron fits into in a circular pattern. Keeps everything nice and in it’s place. Martin’s Golf and Tennis in Myrtle Beach has the best deal I’ve seen on this bag.

Response:

I live near a golfsmith so I can buy in person.  You bring up a great point, bags have not kept pace with the rest of the game. Then again I think the baggage handlers at the airlines could break a – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I’ll remember Golfsmith when I’m next shopping for a bag but somehow I think my next one will definitely be bought in person, rather than mail order. I think the improvement in golf equipment over the last 20 years or so has been incredible – clubs and especially balls are much better.   Somehow golf bags have not kept pace.  Many look like cheezie luggage, too heavy, not enough of the right kind of space.   Grrr.

Response:

@aol.com says… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I tried the Cart bag route and went back to my Ping Hoofer. Yeah, your right clubs get a little tangled sometimes but that’s about my only complaint. I love having the versatility it gives me to either walk or ride. My club won’t allow pull carts. As for the staff bag, the reason I don’t like that idea is because so often the pockets are not made to be put on a cart. a true cart bag should have all the pockets accesable while it’s strapped to the cart. A carry bag soes this quite well, but most staff bags I seen, and the one I bought, have some large pockets on the side of the bag that face the cart. So you have to unstrap the bag to get at the pockets. Not very good when it’s raining and your trying to get your rainsuit out…. I recommend a "staff bag", ie like the tour guys use.  It is 12" in diameter, which is big enough to solve the club jamming problem.  Lotsa pockets.  I bought a 10" bag and the clubs still jam. Golfsmith has maybe the best selection of bags around, if you can’t find it there,….. well maybe it just can’t be found

I’ll remember Golfsmith when I’m next shopping for a bag but somehow I think my next one will definitely be bought in person, rather than mail order. I think the improvement in golf equipment over the last 20 years or so has been incredible – clubs and especially balls are much better.   Somehow golf bags have not kept pace.  Many look like cheezie luggage, too heavy, not enough of the right kind of space.   Grrr.

Response:

I tried the Cart bag route and went back to my Ping Hoofer. Yeah, your right clubs get a little tangled sometimes but that’s about my only complaint. I love having the versatility it gives me to either walk or ride. My club won’t allow pull carts. As for the staff bag, the reason I don’t like that idea is because so often the pockets are not made to be put on a cart. a true cart bag should have all the pockets accesable while it’s strapped to the cart. A carry bag soes this quite well, but most staff bags I seen, and the one I bought, have some large pockets on the side of the bag that face the cart. So you have to unstrap the bag to get at the pockets. Not very good when it’s raining and your trying to get your rainsuit out…. I recommend a "staff bag", ie like the tour guys use.  It is 12" in diameter, which is big enough to solve the club jamming problem.  Lotsa pockets.  I bought a 10" bag and the clubs still jam.

Golfsmith has maybe the best selection of bags around, if you can’t find it there,….. well maybe it just can’t be found

Response:

I have a Great Divider (http://greatdivider.com/pro/Pro.html) which is perfect and solves the problems you describe. Sun Mountain has a new one called the C-130 (http://sunmountain.com/golfbags/allbags.asp#cart) which I’ve seen at my club and also looks good. Jeff – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Finally (let’s not put in too many requirements here…) I’d like to be able to buy it at Golfsmith.  Only because I have a 20% off coupon I haven’t used.  No need to let it go to waste. Until you put that requirement in, I would have highly recommended a Great Divider bag.  Hell, I STILL recommend a Great Divider bag–use the coupon for something else!  :-) Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx Home: http://home.stx.rr.com/dclary RSG Roll Call http://www.rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=claryd

Response:

Finally (let’s not put in too many requirements here…) I’d like to be able to buy it at Golfsmith.  Only because I have a 20% off coupon I haven’t used.  No need to let it go to waste.

Until you put that requirement in, I would have highly recommended a Great Divider bag.  Hell, I STILL recommend a Great Divider bag–use the coupon for something else!  :-) Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx Home: http://home.stx.rr.com/dclary RSG Roll Call http://www.rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=claryd

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ve had my Ping stand bag for a while and really don’t walk all that often.  Because of that and general dissatisfaction, I’m giving serious consideration to a new cart bag.  I figure I can always strap it to my pull cart if I want to walk. One thing I’m giving serious consideration to is a bag that has 14 full length dividers.  I find that my Ping with its four compartments doesn’t work–clubs stick together when I’m pulling them out.  Does the 14 compartment deal solve this problem?  I know some folks aren’t fans of that style, but it sounds like a solution.  I’d also like to get a bag with the separate putter sleeve on the outside.  (I assume that the 14th internal compartment must be for the ball retriever… ) Finally (let’s not put in too many requirements here…) I’d like to be able to buy it at Golfsmith.  Only because I have a 20% off coupon I haven’t used.  No need to let it go to waste. Thanks in advance as always to everyone! Bob Ontario, California Finally recovered from 5 days in Vegas….

Go to a Goodwill store.  I bought a like brand new bag there for $3.70 a couple years back.

Response:

I have a Datrek 180 IDS.  14 full length sleeves, putter compartment on the outside and many pockets.  Good solid bag.

Amen to this suggestion.

Response:

I’ve had my Ping stand bag for a while and really don’t walk all that often.  Because of that and general dissatisfaction, I’m giving serious consideration to a new cart bag.  I figure I can always strap it to my pull cart if I want to walk. One thing I’m giving serious consideration to is a bag that has 14 full length dividers.  I find that my Ping with its four compartments doesn’t work–clubs stick together when I’m pulling them out.  Does the 14 compartment deal solve this problem?  I know some folks aren’t fans of that style, but it sounds like a solution.  I’d also like to get a bag with the separate putter sleeve on the outside.  (I assume that the 14th internal compartment must be for the ball retriever… ) Finally (let’s not put in too many requirements here…) I’d like to be able to buy it at Golfsmith.  Only because I have a 20% off coupon I haven’t used.  No need to let it go to waste. Thanks in advance as always to everyone! Bob Ontario, California Finally recovered from 5 days in Vegas….

Response:

I have a Datrek 180 IDS.  14 full length sleeves, putter compartment on the outside and many pockets.  Good solid bag.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ve had my Ping stand bag for a while and really don’t walk all that often.  Because of that and general dissatisfaction, I’m giving serious consideration to a new cart bag.  I figure I can always strap it to my pull cart if I want to walk. One thing I’m giving serious consideration to is a bag that has 14 full length dividers.  I find that my Ping with its four compartments doesn’t work–clubs stick together when I’m pulling them out.  Does the 14 compartment deal solve this problem?  I know some folks aren’t fans of that style, but it sounds like a solution.  I’d also like to get a bag with the separate putter sleeve on the outside.  (I assume that the 14th internal compartment must be for the ball retriever… ) Finally (let’s not put in too many requirements here…) I’d like to be able to buy it at Golfsmith.  Only because I have a 20% off coupon I haven’t used.  No need to let it go to waste. Thanks in advance as always to everyone! Bob Ontario, California Finally recovered from 5 days in Vegas….

I recommend a "staff bag", ie like the tour guys use.  It is 12" in diameter, which is big enough to solve the club jamming problem.  Lotsa pockets.  I bought a 10" bag and the clubs still jam. jmkanes

Response:

I’ve never used anything near high dollar as far as golf equipment is concerned.  My entire set of Golden Bear Mega Bear (Jack Nicklaus) clubs cost $250.  However, I always had problems with the driver.  I could hit farther with my 3 than the driver and I wasn’t very accurate with the driver, either.  Now, I buy this Zevo compressor and wham, bam, I’m hitting them straight and very far.  The are going about 40-50 yards further than any hit with my previous golden bear driver.  I picked it up at golfsmith and I’m not sure if it’s just a really good driver, my old one just sucks, or if it’s the spiffy shaft.  I was told by Golden Bear that my shaft is between r and s, but my shaft on the Zevo is just R.  I also love the POW when I hit with the Zevo.  Anyone else have experience with a zevo? Reiver

Response:

You’ve been misinformed.  Your shaft isn’t between r and s,  it’s between m and s.  Microscopic and small.  Sincerely, everyone who’s seen you naked.

Response:

I see someone has nothing better to do than write 3rd grade comments/stupid trolling posts on Usenet….. Ah, I notice you are a webtv user.  Well, that explains a lot. Reiver – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You’ve been misinformed.  Your shaft isn’t between r and s,  it’s between m and s.  Microscopic and small.  Sincerely, everyone who’s seen you naked.

Response:

swears his Zevo Driver gave him the same kind of extra distance you’re talking about. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -The are going about 40-50 yards further than any hit with my previous golden bear driver.  I picked it up at golfsmith and I’m not sure if it’s just a really good driver, my old one just sucks, or if it’s the spiffy shaft.  I was told by Golden Bear that my shaft is between r and s, but my shaft on the Zevo is just R.  I also love the POW when I hit with the Zevo.  Anyone else have experience with a zevo? Reiver

Response:

Well, I know the driver head makes a difference, but I wasn’t sure if it was a combination of that and a shaft more suitable for me.  It’s also a much thicker staff, if that matters any.  Anyways, as long as it works, I’m happy! Reiver

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – swears his Zevo Driver gave him the same kind of extra distance you’re talking about. The are going about 40-50 yards further than any hit with my previous golden bear driver.  I picked it up at golfsmith and I’m not sure if it’s just a really good driver, my old one just sucks, or if it’s the spiffy shaft.  I was told by Golden Bear that my shaft is between r and s, but my shaft on the Zevo is just R.  I also love the POW when I hit with the Zevo.  Anyone else have experience with a zevo? Reiver

Response:

What’s the story behind Tiger and Fluff parting ways a few years ago? Another thread made mention of it in a discussion of Tiger’s relations with Butch Harmon.  I never did hear the story.  Thanks!

I think there was also some discussion of the Fluff-Tiger breakup in that book about Beem.

Response:

what’s the story about tiger / fluff

here’s google’s rendition on the subject. http://www.allstarz.org/tigerwoods/tigerfluff.htm

I am looking to upgrade my fairway woods. I recently acquired a Taylor Made 360 Ti driver which I like. The current fairway woods in my bag include an Orlimar (13 degree) and a Taylor Made Ti Bubble 2 (7 wood). I have the best luck with the 7 wood. As you can tell, I am NOT a low handicap golfer. When looking at Taylor Made fairway woods, I find quite a few choices. I don’t know much about the 200, 300 and Rescue fairwood series but they are now joined by at least the R580 series, V-Steel series, and the Rescue Mid series. Has anyone tried to figure out what Taylor Made is doing and how these fairway wood series compare to each other? Are there any on-line reviews existing comparing any or all of these choices? Are there any recommended golf equipment review sites? Any experiences, comments or thoughts on any of these Taylor Made products is appreciated. It is confusing to me. Terry

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am looking to upgrade my fairway woods. I recently acquired a Taylor Made 360 Ti driver which I like. The current fairway woods in my bag include an Orlimar (13 degree) and a Taylor Made Ti Bubble 2 (7 wood). I have the best luck with the 7 wood. As you can tell, I am NOT a low handicap golfer. When looking at Taylor Made fairway woods, I find quite a few choices. I don’t know much about the 200, 300 and Rescue fairwood series but they are now joined by at least the R580 series, V-Steel series, and the Rescue Mid series. Has anyone tried to figure out what Taylor Made is doing and how these fairway wood series compare to each other? Are there any on-line reviews existing comparing any or all of these choices? Are there any recommended golf equipment review sites? Any experiences, comments or thoughts on any of these Taylor Made products is appreciated. It is confusing to me. Terry

Terry Good points.  Taylor Made has had so many releases this year with drivers and fairway woods, it is difficult for the consumer to keep up with what is what.  And each release is somehow superior to the previous. Go to www.golfreview.com and www.golfopinions.com for a lot of good feedback on Taylor made equipment.  I would also encourage you to look at the Cobra SS series.  Great stuff.  And Cobra’s marketing strategy has been just the opposite of Taylor Made.  A limited product line offering, but did they ever do it right with the little they have good luck Eric

Response:

YOU try it. Randy

If I could, I’d have Ben Wright and Gary McCord following just about anybody. Uncensored. At least that way, I’d be entertained. Network TV golf has become pathetically boring, and too politically correct. Sorry folks, but I used to love to watch golf on TV. Now it’s like watching ice melt. In a nutshell, TV used to cover the golf event. Now TV is trying to make golf an event. Sorta like the network News makes it’s own news. Ain’t gonna happen. Let me put it another way. I have a feeling that those of you that don’t agree with what I’ve said above liked the 90 minute coverage of OJ’s white Bronco driving down the street. The people that may agree with what I’ve said above would have rather watched the major golf event OJ’s white Bronco pre-empted.;-)

Response:

snip If I could, I’d have Ben Wright and Gary McCord following just about anybody. Uncensored. At least that way, I’d be entertained. Network TV golf has become pathetically boring, and too politically correct.

resnip    My wife and I felt today’s early round coverage on USA was far superior to anything that ABC did.  We actually saw golfers hitting shots as opposed to someone going on and on about extraneous garbage.

Response:

The main problem I had with the ABC coverage is that they failed to notice that there were more than about 6 golfers playing.  While it is important to show the leaders and those in close pursuit, there were probably 50 others playing as well.   The recent majors in Australia had excellent TV coverage. They

generally concentrate on the last 5 or 6 groups, with constant updates on completed scores / hot shots etc. Great stuff !!!  Jim. — PLEASE visit our website for detailed information, including prices and how to order any of the products from the St Andrews Golf Gift Shop        http://www.ult-standrews-golf.com

Response:

Cool! Can I come over and watch? Got beer? —–Original Message—– Sent:   Tuesday, February 24, 1998 8:19 AM We are all very good at criticising television coverage, but what would everyone do to improve it?

Hmmm, Dreaming…. Let’s start with fully interactive TV, and make the golf viewing experience able to parallel attending a tournament, and then maybe surpass it in some ways. Start with a menu allowing me to choose 5 or 6 players I am interested in, then I can direct video of each player to a different ‘window’ on my TV screen. I can put the ‘leaders’ feed in one window, John Daly in another, Fred Couples in another, etc. Also available are feeds for a particular view – I can choose a camera perched above the 12th green, or on the tee on the finishing hole. This is like the choice at a tournament – do I pick a vantage point and watch different golfers, or do I follow a particular group – except I can do both!  And I can follow multiple groups! Of course I can manipulate the windows however I like – expand to full-screen mode for shots that are important (to me!), with a smaller window showing the leader prepare for his shot – if he gets ready in time, I can expand that window instead. At the top of each window (in the title bar for instance), is the player name, yardage to the hole, what hole he is playing, etc. I can call up the player’s statistics if I like – is he likely to reach this par 5 in two? I can show the player on one half of the screen hitting the ball, and watch the ball come flying into the green on the other half – just like that ‘puter game! I can pop up a map of the course, or a 3-D graphical representation of the hole, or the green, or… Maybe I can even zoom in on that lovely spectator in the front row over there (now that would be just like the real thing). There is one sad, lonely unused feed, of the talking heads, repeating themselves repetitively and redundantly – that button rusts from misuse (except at Randy’s house where he sits in rapture glued to the TV listening to ‘he can’t give the hole away; he can’t give the hole away’ just needling you Randy! ). Oh, and maybe I can have a ‘killfile’ – filter out shots of the blimp along with its fascinating statistics… Dear CBS, please have this all implemented in time for the Masters — — — David "Thor" Collard — http://ttsoft.com/thor

Response:

How about a mic and on-course speaker so, right after the player swings, you can shout, "YOU DA MAN!". Heh. And my fantasy would be a remote-conrol fist, so I could punch the youdamaners in the nose from the comfort of my sofa.

ROFL!!!  YoYo da man! Randy

Response:

: Hmmm, Dreaming…. <fabulous description of a mindblowing interactive multimedia golf viewing fantasy deleted and I add: How about a mic and on-course speaker so, right after the player swings, you can shout, "YOU DA MAN!".

Heh. And my fantasy would be a remote-conrol fist, so I could punch the youdamaners in the nose from the comfort of my sofa. —                         E Pluribus Unix

Response:

: Hmmm, Dreaming…. <fabulous description of a mindblowing interactive multimedia golf viewing fantasy deleted and I add: How about a mic and on-course speaker so, right after the player swings, you can shout, "YOU DA MAN!".

Hmmm, another item for the ‘killfile’ feature, methinks. — — — David "Thor" Collard — http://ttsoft.com/thor

Response:

This doesn’t just apply to ABC, but to most of the other networks as well.  How about just showing some shots?  I know it’s radical, but I think it might work. On the otherhand for those that enjoy the way golf is currently covered, perhaps ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. could start applying their "golf format" to their other sports coverage.   For instance during a football game, in the middle of a drive, they could cut away to a feature on the running back.  Perhaps after the first out in the fifth inning of a ball game they could do a feature on rules.  Maybe as Jordan comes down the court on a Sunday afternoon they could cut away and do an instructional piece on 3 point shots. This could go a step further as well.  Instead of covering the entire hockey game, the camera could focus in "do isolations" on Gretzky for most of the game, because we don’t really want to watch those other guys anyway. I think I’ll start my own network….

Response:

i’d show as many golf shots as possible.  i would NOT show players walking down the fairway, checking the wind, discussing clubs (though that is interesting IF you can hear the player and caddie talking), going through

ABC did catch a little conversation between player and caddie.  The moron who finished 2nd (not Lenard, Toms I think) missed a short birdie on 15 and let the f-word fly while berating his caddie for misreading the putt. If you watch the replay, the idiot pushed it.  He owes his caddy an apology. they sure could show an awful lot of shots in 38-42 minutes.

I never watch live.  That’s what fast forward is for.  They might think they’re making us watch more commercials, but I bet a lot of people are actually watching fewer ads. Bob Dietrich

Response:

: Hmmm, Dreaming…. <fabulous description of a mindblowing interactive multimedia golf viewing fantasy deleted and I add: How about a mic and on-course speaker so, right after the player swings, you can shout, "YOU DA MAN!". Robbie

Response:

My rule is if it’s on ABC I don’t watch it. Almost the same for NBC. CBS is consistently good .. despite the inane promos. Then there’s little slice of heaven…The Masters on CBS.  Makes me want to go out and buy a Caddilac…if the cars were worth a damn.

Response:

Is it me or does anyone else feel the ABC coverage has gone to pot? Item:  cut away to news after Duval sunk his putt.

I didn’t mind them cutting away cause it was over.  What bugs me is they made such a big deal about having to cut away because there were more important things happening in the gulf.   Then they put on 6 commercials AND the local news before we got to the ‘more important things’ on the national news. Tell it like it is.  Say you’re cutting away cause it’s over and you need make some more money. Bob Dietrich

Response:

We are all very good at criticising television coverage, but what would everyone do to improve it? Here’s a few things I’ve seen recently, at least in Australia, that I thought were good. 1. The 3-D green views. The system for this comes from Melbourne company Pineapplehead (http://www.pineapplehead.com.au). I like being able to see how the green slopes and breaks, especially as a lot of greenside views are from high above the green, which flatten out the perspective. 2. The satellite relay of the ball position, combined with an overhead diagram of the hole. This might be old hat or common, but at the Canon Challenge here last weekend, they had this guy with a backpack who’d run over to the ball when it landed, and he’d relay the ball position via a GPS type system for overlay onto the hole diagram. You could see where each player had driven their ball to and the shot they had to play. 3. Better fly-bys of the hole. I don’t really like the high helicopter shots with a metre-meter(?) ticking away at the side. You can’t look at both easily and the perspective seems wrong. For the Canon Challenge, they had a virtual 3-D type near-to-ground view of each hole, and it was like actually walking up the fairway. You could see the mounds, swales bunker depths and rolls in the fairway that you can’t perceive from an aerial view. There were metreage signs every 50 metres that were "stuck" in the ground. I think this was another Pineapplehead job. 4. Knowledgeable, unbiased, rational commentators with good voices. I really like those who know what the players are confronting and how to explain it. The occasional simple rule explanation doesn’t hurt either. They’re often ex-golfers. Here, Jack Newton and Ian Baker-Finch come to mind as good examples. We even had Brad Faxon for a short while in the Greg Norman Challenge after he missed the cut. He wasn’t bad, particularly as he had very recent experience of the course and event! What would I like to see? 1. It may not be technically possible, but I’d like a better view of the ball’s flight path, preferably from behind the player, i.e. see what he sees. Too often you see the stroke, the ball disappears out of view, then there’s a cut to a ball by itself in the air, then it plops onto the green. You get no idea of how the shot was shaped. It would be good if you could follow the ball from behind the player into the green, so you could see the height, fade, draw etc. 2. A few slo-mos of player’s swings, especially when they make a really good or a bad shot. That way you could see why they pulled the ball badly left, or put it to within a metre of the pin. It would be instructive for the golfers watching. 3. More cameras at a major like the British Open . That way we could follow more players. BTW, I’ve got no interest in Pineapplehead, other than being a graphic artist who is interested in what’s happening in 3-D rendering. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –  : Every time someone posts on this subject, it becomes the same old  : criticism.  Just once, I’d like to get you guys in the production truck  : and see how well you’d do it.

Response:

Is it me or does anyone else feel the ABC coverage has gone to pot? Item:  frequent cut always for previous b-ball coverage Item:  frequent comments on the car, van, blimp – mini commercials without end? Item:  frequent cut always for up coming coverage? Item:  cut away to news after Duval sunk his putt.

It’s not just ABC or even all golf coverage.  Broadcasters of most sporting events have come to believe that their efforts are more important than those of the participants in the event they are covering.  The Olympics coverage was a prime example.  They seem to be aiming at an audience that is more interested in controversy, personalities and background information than in the competition.  This may work in events such as the Olympics where advertizers are aiming at a broad based audience, but they should realize that only active golfers buy golf equipment. I cringe when I think of the deluge of extraneous verbiage they will inflict on us at the Masters. — Don Cameron     "The Crowd has never thirsted for the truth"                                 – Gustave Le Bon

Response:

We are all very good at criticising television coverage, but what would everyone do to improve it?

Hmmm, Dreaming…. Let’s start with fully interactive TV, and make the golf viewing experience able to parallel attending a tournament, and then maybe surpass it in some ways. Start with a menu allowing me to choose 5 or 6 players I am interested in, then I can direct video of each player to a different ‘window’ on my TV screen. I can put the ‘leaders’ feed in one window, John Daly in another, Fred Couples in another, etc. Also available are feeds for a particular view – I can choose a camera perched above the 12th green, or on the tee on the finishing hole. This is like the choice at a tournament – do I pick a vantage point and watch different golfers, or do I follow a particular group – except I can do both!  And I can follow multiple groups! Of course I can manipulate the windows however I like – expand to full-screen mode for shots that are important (to me!), with a smaller window showing the leader prepare for his shot – if he gets ready in time, I can expand that window instead. At the top of each window (in the title bar for instance), is the player name, yardage to the hole, what hole he is playing, etc. I can call up the player’s statistics if I like – is he likely to reach this par 5 in two? I can show the player on one half of the screen hitting the ball, and watch the ball come flying into the green on the other half – just like that ‘puter game! I can pop up a map of the course, or a 3-D graphical representation of the hole, or the green, or… Maybe I can even zoom in on that lovely spectator in the front row over there (now that would be just like the real thing). There is one sad, lonely unused feed, of the talking heads, repeating themselves repetitively and redundantly – that button rusts from misuse (except at Randy’s house where he sits in rapture glued to the TV listening to ‘he can’t give the hole away; he can’t give the hole away’ just needling you Randy! ). Oh, and maybe I can have a ‘killfile’ – filter out shots of the blimp along with its fascinating statistics… Dear CBS, please have this all implemented in time for the Masters — — — David "Thor" Collard — http://ttsoft.com/thor

Response:

Yep, Yep, Yep, Yep, Yep, Yep and Yep.  Those are all great ideas, Colin!  Anybody from ABC listening? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – We are all very good at criticising television coverage, but what would everyone do to improve it? Here’s a few things I’ve seen recently, at least in Australia, that I thought were good. 1. The 3-D green views. The system for this comes from Melbourne company Pineapplehead (http://www.pineapplehead.com.au). I like being able to see how the green slopes and breaks, especially as a lot of greenside views are from high above the green, which flatten out the perspective. 2. The satellite relay of the ball position, combined with an overhead diagram of the hole. This might be old hat or common, but at the Canon Challenge here last weekend, they had this guy with a backpack who’d run over to the ball when it landed, and he’d relay the ball position via a GPS type system for overlay onto the hole diagram. You could see where each player had driven their ball to and the shot they had to play. 3. Better fly-bys of the hole. I don’t really like the high helicopter shots with a metre-meter(?) ticking away at the side. You can’t look at both easily and the perspective seems wrong. For the Canon Challenge, they had a virtual 3-D type near-to-ground view of each hole, and it was like actually walking up the fairway. You could see the mounds, swales bunker depths and rolls in the fairway that you can’t perceive from an aerial view. There were metreage signs every 50 metres that were "stuck" in the ground. I think this was another Pineapplehead job. 4. Knowledgeable, unbiased, rational commentators with good voices. I really like those who know what the players are confronting and how to explain it. The occasional simple rule explanation doesn’t hurt either. They’re often ex-golfers. Here, Jack Newton and Ian Baker-Finch come to mind as good examples. We even had Brad Faxon for a short while in the Greg Norman Challenge after he missed the cut. He wasn’t bad, particularly as he had very recent experience of the course and event! What would I like to see? 1. It may not be technically possible, but I’d like a better view of the ball’s flight path, preferably from behind the player, i.e. see what he sees. Too often you see the stroke, the ball disappears out of view, then there’s a cut to a ball by itself in the air, then it plops onto the green. You get no idea of how the shot was shaped. It would be good if you could follow the ball from behind the player into the green, so you could see the height, fade, draw etc. 2. A few slo-mos of player’s swings, especially when they make a really good or a bad shot. That way you could see why they pulled the ball badly left, or put it to within a metre of the pin. It would be instructive for the golfers watching. 3. More cameras at a major like the British Open . That way we could follow more players. BTW, I’ve got no interest in Pineapplehead, other than being a graphic artist who is interested in what’s happening in 3-D rendering.  : Every time someone posts on this subject, it becomes the same old  : criticism.  Just once, I’d like to get you guys in the production truck  : and see how well you’d do it.

– Barry Smith  Binary Data Services – http://www.looksee.com/bds  Buy Sell Trade Golf Clubs – http://www.looksee.com/barry  Internet to Alphanumeric Pager Services – http://www.AlphaBeeper.Com

Response:

We are all very good at criticising television coverage, but what would everyone do to improve it?

[good stuff snipped] Great ideas! 1. It may not be technically possible, but I’d like a better view of the ball’s flight path, preferably from behind the player, i.e. see what he sees.

There are technical problems with this, as you suspected.  The camera can’t follow the ball against the bright sky.  The best way to follow the ball so you can see the "shape" of the shot is the blimp shot of the ball’s flight (or from a crane).  The problem with that is that you lose perspective as to the height of the shot.  (Unless you have 3D TV.) But other than that, I like ALL your ideas! Randy

Response:

Maybe, maybe not.  And even if those shots are "interesting," they’re clearly not relavent to the storyline of the tournament.  How many

Only one comment here – there are many storylines to every tournament.  And I agreed that they have to show all shots related to the most prevalent story line… but my post was lamenting the repetetive droning of the talking heads, not the coverage that showed the golfers in contention like Duval and Leonard, or indeed the talking that actually concerned the story line (168 yards to the pin, Duval is playing quickly, etc). they have to cater to whoever the viewers are, not to the things *I* like. And I, for one, respect your opinion.  But it’s a business.  Electronic

Absolutely – and YES, I think they are losing viewers by showing basically nothing when they should be showing golf. media generates revenue through advertising sales.  Rates for those spots are determined based on how many viewers there are.  Do you really think they’d have MORE viewers if they concentrated more time on the guys who are hopelessly out of contention?  Unless it’s Tiger, Jack, Write them, don’t waste your time posting here.  If you want to get their attention, write directly to ABC, CBS, NBC, ESPN (or whoever). But I’ll warn you ahead of time, ONE letter from ONE viewer (when they have millions) won’t make a difference.  You can’t please all the people all the time, y’know?

Yes I know.  And those you don’t will complain, then eventually turn off the TV.  Even real golf fans. they had a blowout on their hands.  And what do networks do when they have a blowout NFL game?  They cut away to a different game in the 4th quarter (unless it’s your local team and you’re watching in the local market).

Well, golf is very different than football, and of course, maybe their ‘market research’ supports the way they cover the event, but I do know many golfers are watching to see their favorite player, not that concerned about who actually ‘wins’.  As evidence, at the Memorial every year, there are many fans that follow groups that are not ‘in contention’.  You attend many tournaments, I gather, so I am sure you have seen the same. In any case, again, my point is that I would rather see golf than hear talk about golf… and I would rather play golf than watch golf, and I would rather play golf than eat, or drink, or even post to rsg  :-) — — — David "Thor" Collard — http://ttsoft.com/thor

Response:

Loved ABC coverage. By channel switching during commercials and slow times I was able to watch NCAA basketball, NBA basketball, and some Olympic coverage. Can CBS do that? <smile – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Is it me or does anyone else feel the ABC coverage has gone to pot? Item:  frequent cut always for previous b-ball coverage Item:  frequent comments on the car, van, blimp – mini commercials without end? Item:  frequent cut always for up coming coverage? Item:  cut away to news after Duval sunk his putt.

Response:

Is it me or does anyone else feel the ABC coverage has gone to pot? Item:  frequent cut always for previous b-ball coverage Item:  frequent comments on the car, van, blimp – mini commercials without end? Item:  frequent cut always for up coming coverage? Item:  cut away to news after Duval sunk his putt.

Response:

The main problem I had with the ABC coverage is that they failed to notice that there were more than about 6 golfers playing.  While it is important to show the leaders and those in close pursuit, there were probably 50 others playing as well. — — Don’t sweat the petty things and DON’T PET THE SWEATY THINGS!

Response:

The main problem I had with the ABC coverage is that they failed to notice that there were more than about 6 golfers playing.  While it is important to show the leaders and those in close pursuit, there were probably 50 others playing as well.

Every time someone posts on this subject, it becomes the same old criticism.  Just once, I’d like to get you guys in the production truck and see how well you’d do it.  You’d find out how these decisions are made–that it boils down to one question:  "what is the story of this golf tournament?"  On Saturday, the only story was Duval, who appeared as though he was going to lap the field.  Sure, ABC could have shown us shots by players, and the announcers could have said, "…and his putt goes in, to bring him to within 14 shots of the lead!"  Boy, now THAT would have made for some compelling television! Just remember, there are only 60 minutes in an hour, subtract the commercial minutes, subtract the "promos" of "tonight on ABC/CBS/NBC/ESPN (whatever network, they all do it)," and the sponsored features (tip of the week and the like), then you subtract the time spent on the obligitory interviews with tournament directors, the CEO of the title sponsor, and now you’re down to about 38-42 minutes of live golf. Now, every shot you cover of some guy who’s trying to move up into the top 20 is a shot you could have seen from someone who’s play is RELAVENT to the storyline of the tournament. YOU try it. Randy

Response:

: Every time someone posts on this subject, it becomes the same old : criticism.  Just once, I’d like to get you guys in the production truck : and see how well you’d do it.   i’d show as many golf shots as possible.  i would NOT show players walking down the fairway, checking the wind, discussing clubs (though that is interesting IF you can hear the player and caddie talking), going through their 2 minute pre-shot routine, reading putts, etc.  i’d simply show golf shots.  sort of like they do many times on thursday and friday when it’s still anybody’s tournament to win. : the title sponsor, and now you’re down to about 38-42 minutes of live : golf. considering that the actual golf swing takes one or two seconds to complete, (round it up to 10 seconds so we can see it land and the player’s reaction) they sure could show an awful lot of shots in 38-42 minutes. : Now, every shot you cover of some guy who’s trying to move up into the : top 20 is a shot you could have seen from someone who’s play is RELAVENT : to the storyline of the tournament. my way, you could see almost EVERYBODY’s shots.  those in contention and those not. : YOU try it. if i could, i would. do you think abc will hire me as a producer/director with no television experience? — charlie please post all responses.  my email address on this post is incorrect in hopes of thwarting the efforts of the bulk-emailers to send me unsolicited and annoying email.  if you must email me, my correct address is charlie at dolphins dot ssc dot nasa dot gov

Response:

That guy making his putt to get within 14 strokes of the lead is *infinitely* more interesting than some voice going on and on

Maybe, maybe not.  And even if those shots are "interesting," they’re clearly not relavent to the storyline of the tournament.  How many tournaments can you name the player who finished 12th?  Nobody cares. Alot of those guys hitting shots who are 14 strokes off the lead are 14 strokes off the lead because they’re MISSING putts, not making them. It’s a tough call.  But to be fair, remember, when you’ve got a guy who started Saturday and Sunday 7 shots clear of 2nd place, there weren’t many who had a prayer of getting into contention. Go back and check your videotapes of tournaments in which there were several in contention and you’ll find that many more shots were shown of many more players. they have to cater to whoever the viewers are, not to the things *I* like.

And I, for one, respect your opinion.  But it’s a business.  Electronic media generates revenue through advertising sales.  Rates for those spots are determined based on how many viewers there are.  Do you really think they’d have MORE viewers if they concentrated more time on the guys who are hopelessly out of contention?  Unless it’s Tiger, Jack, Arnie or some other "icon" of the game, I don’t think so.  And believe me, with millions of dollars on the line, they’ve done their research. And I, as a viewer and customer of ABC/NBC/CBS, can only complain and hope somebody decides that there are enough like me to target US as an audience, before we completely take our leave.

Write them, don’t waste your time posting here.  If you want to get their attention, write directly to ABC, CBS, NBC, ESPN (or whoever). But I’ll warn you ahead of time, ONE letter from ONE viewer (when they have millions) won’t make a difference.  You can’t please all the people all the time, y’know? Does *anybody* out there prefer to listen to Curtis Strange (or any ‘analyst’ – pick one) babble on and on, rather than watch great golfers golf, in contention or not?

As a matter of fact, I WOULD rather hear Curtis Strange, who just came off the golf course and knows exactly how the course is playing, knows which way the wind is blowing, knows how fast the greens are, knows how hard some of the greens are, etc., and I find insight like that to add far more to my appreciation of the shots I see from the leaders than I would enjoy seeing some guy three-putt another green to fall 17 shots off the lead. When was the last time you watched a basketball game and had it interrupted to show 10 minutes of golf?  Maybe it happens (does it? I don’t watch basketball, so I don’t know), but it certainly is annoying to me, who cares not a whit for basketball or other sports.

On this we agree.  But again, remember, this weekend’s tournament was something of an abberation.  Duval was wayyyyyyy out in front, threatening to make it a runaway.  The fact that there was a 4-shot swing on the 13th hole was, in itself, a remarkable turn of events (it virtually never happens), so the network can be forgiven for assuming they had a blowout on their hands.  And what do networks do when they have a blowout NFL game?  They cut away to a different game in the 4th quarter (unless it’s your local team and you’re watching in the local market). To be fair about it, it didn’t look like it was going to be much of a tournament until Duval tripled #13, and by that time, many of the players who were brought back into contention were nearly finished, so there weren’t that many contenders to go to by then. Consider what transpires:  Golf is taking place all over the course, many players are hitting shots at the same time.  There are only so many tape machines available to tape shots for later playback.  You use ‘em to get the shots of the players closest to the lead, and you try to get the leaders on LIVE whenever possible.  By the time you’ve played back one or two other shots, it’s time for the leader to hit again.  There’s really not as much time as you think, considering that the broadcast would lack continuity if you didn’t give the announcers time to set the scene for each shot, "he’s got 168 yards, that tree is in his way, he’s either got to hit a big fade or hit a low runner under the branch, but that brings the bunker up at the green into play."  You don’t just show the 2 seconds it takes for him to swing and the 4-seconds of hang time the ball is in the air.  It takes a bit of scene setting to give the viewer a sense of perspective and a feel for what the player faces. Are the broadcasts perfect? Never. Randy

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The main problem I had with the ABC coverage is that they failed to notice that there were more than about 6 golfers playing.  While it is Every time someone posts on this subject, it becomes the same old criticism.  Just once, I’d like to get you guys in the production truck [...] Just remember, there are only 60 minutes in an hour, subtract the commercial minutes, subtract the "promos" of "tonight on ABC/CBS/NBC/ESPN (whatever network, they all do it)," and the sponsored features (tip of the week and the like), then you subtract the time spent on the obligitory interviews with tournament directors, the CEO of the title sponsor, and now you’re down to about 38-42 minutes of live golf. Now, every shot you cover of some guy who’s trying to move up into the top 20 is a shot you could have seen from someone who’s play is RELAVENT to the storyline of the tournament.

Well Randy, while I agree 100 percent that the network has to show the leaders (or whatever the main ’storyline’ of the tournament is, be it Tiger or the current ‘in the news’ golfer), as much as possible, I don’t think that is the main problem.   My beef is, if they can’t show those few golfers, they show talking heads INSTEAD OF GOLF.  Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah I don’t even know or care what they are saying, and I know there is golf taking place and some of it should be shown instead. That guy making his putt to get within 14 strokes of the lead is *infinitely* more interesting than some voice going on and on about information I can much more readily get elsewhere, or has been said 10 times in the last XX minutes (can’t spin the ball out of the rough…), or a 10-minute replay of the shots WE JUST SAW 20 minutes ago. And, it is getting worse and worse every year.  I used to watch every time golf was on TV, and watch less and less every year, almost always taping it anyway so I can zoom past the talking heads as well as the commercials.   I am not saying I can do better, but that is not my area of expertise, and of course they have to cater to whoever the viewers are, not to the things *I* like. I *will* say that it USED to be better (from my point of view), and I have the videotapes to prove it.  And I, as a viewer and customer of ABC/NBC/CBS, can only complain and hope somebody decides that there are enough like me to target US as an audience, before we completely take our leave. Does *anybody* out there prefer to listen to Curtis Strange (or any ‘analyst’ – pick one) babble on and on, rather than watch great golfers golf, in contention or not? … As an aside, as long as I have gripe mode turned on   When was the last time you watched a basketball game and had it interrupted to show 10 minutes of golf?  Maybe it happens (does it? I don’t watch basketball, so I don’t know), but it certainly is annoying to me, who cares not a whit for basketball or other sports. — — — David "Thor" Collard — http://ttsoft.com/thor

Response:

    As Ben Curtis was walking up to the 18th green Curtis Strange said in referring to Ben Curtis, "Even though he didn’t win".  At that point it did look like it was Bjorn’s tournament but he still some holes to go.    Years ago Brent Mussberger gave a game to the Celtics with a few seconds to go in the game. He started backtracking when the last few seconds took minutes to finish out and the Celtics almost lost the game.                                                    James Jackson

Response:

Does anyone else find ABC’s coverage as irrating as me? Show three putts, then 4 minutes of commercials. No tee shots, no approach shots…no feel for who is swinging well and who is not.

But golf on any commercial channel is frustrating to watch. Virtually the only tournaments worth watching here in the UK are the ones shown on the BBC. They covered the final day of the Open from 10.00am until after the presentation at 6.30pm, without a single break for commercials, news, or anything. We get the US tour on Sky satellite TV and the best way to watch a tournament is to record it and fast-forward through all the commercial breaks. – Michael (UK)

Response:

ABC has maybe 9 cameras (at a normal state side event they’d have 40+) covering the Open. Most of the pictures you see are from the BBC

I could sure tell the difference.  I could hardly ever see the ball on Thursday and Friday.

Response:

Maybe it wasn’t the best but just be happy we got coverage at all. There were days when "coverage" was only in the newspapers and/or radio–no TV.  

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – internet.com says… Does anyone else find ABC’s coverage as irrating as me? Show three putts, then 4 minutes of commercials. No tee shots, no approach shots…no feel for who is swinging well and who is not. Such is life when you don’t control the cameras… ABC has maybe 9 cameras (at a normal state side event they’d have 40+) covering the Open. Most of the pictures you see are from the BBC which is more interested in catering to it’s home viewers than it is viewers in the States. ABC is doing the best it can with what it has to work with.

The BBC is actually interested in covering the tournament, not eliminating 80% of the leaderboard so it can show only TW and well-known PGA players. It is not the pictures that were the problem – it was ABC taking a event with one pace (and covered by the BBC as such) and trying to make it like an NBA game, jamming in commercials, and those ghastly on-screen schills for their crappy fall program line-up. I was surprised ABC hadn’t managed to get a few of September’s stars onto the players bags, a la World Series. So ABC is doing what it wants with the pictures it gets – it just happens to be completely out of tune with the golf watching viewer. William Clark

Response:

At least you were able to watch it live. Here in Hawaii it was on a two hour delay.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Does anyone else find ABC’s coverage as irrating as me? Show three putts, then 4 minutes of commercials. No tee shots, no approach shots…no feel for who is swinging well and who is not. And Ben Curtis is a great story so far, but I don’t give a shit how excited his father is watching the tournament in Ohio. What was he supposed to say, "Oh, is Ben playing well…I wasn’t watching, I was outside mowing the lawn".

Response:

My gripe: when fishing for something to compare with this story, they couldn’t come up with the year’s other great Cinderella story from just a couple of weeks ago, when Lunke won the U.S. Women’s Open. Ben Curtis’ win is right in line with that one. Captain Slice

Response:

The Women’s Open was an NBC thingee. You should know by now if it didn’t happen on their network, it didn’t happen.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My gripe: when fishing for something to compare with this story, they couldn’t come up with the year’s other great Cinderella story from just a couple of weeks ago, when Lunke won the U.S. Women’s Open. Ben Curtis’ win is right in line with that one. Captain Slice

Response:

At least you were able to watch it live. Here in Hawaii it was on a two hour delay.

Hell, you guys are so laid back everything in Hawaii is on a two hour delay.  

Response:

That’s the best observation I’ve heard in a long time and it did not occur to me.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My gripe: when fishing for something to compare with this story, they couldn’t come up with the year’s other great Cinderella story from just a couple of weeks ago, when Lunke won the U.S. Women’s Open. Ben Curtis’ win is right in line with that one. Captain Slice

Response:

You are probably right. And who cares what network things were on… ? I hate those logos on the screen. I hope some network starts running ads "We’re the network that doesn’t advertise during programming."

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Women’s Open was an NBC thingee. You should know by now if it didn’t happen on their network, it didn’t happen. My gripe: when fishing for something to compare with this story, they couldn’t come up with the year’s other great Cinderella story from just a couple of weeks ago, when Lunke won the U.S. Women’s Open. Ben Curtis’ win is right in line with that one. Captain Slice

Response:

The final putt had barely settled into the cup before that idiot Curtis Strange started blathering on about how Tiger Woods hasn’t won any Majors when trailing going into Sunday. So how many Majors did Curtis win when trailing after 54 holes?  The answer is 1, and that was the year that Tom Kite folded up like a cheap lawn chair and shot 78.

Response:

I was very excited watching Ben Curtis win the tournament over Tiger, Love and all the rest of those Great Guys.  I can’t wait to see him win lots more tournaments. HL

Response:

That’s the best observation I’ve heard in a long time and it did not occur to me. My gripe: when fishing for something to compare with this story, they couldn’t come up with the year’s other great Cinderella story from just a couple of weeks ago, when Lunke won the U.S. Women’s Open. Ben Curtis’ win is right in line with that one.

In a way yes but a big difference is I think Curtis was really hitting some good shots.  Lunke was getting it up and down from everywhere.  But both came out of nowhere to win a major, no doubt about that.   — You are in control until you are out of control.

Response:

Does anyone else find ABC’s coverage as irrating as me? Show three putts, then 4 minutes of commercials. No tee shots, no approach shots…no feel for who is swinging well and who is not. And Ben Curtis is a great story so far, but I don’t give a shit how excited his father is watching the tournament in Ohio. What was he supposed to say, "Oh, is Ben playing well…I wasn’t watching, I was outside mowing the lawn".

Response:

internet.com says… Does anyone else find ABC’s coverage as irrating as me? Show three putts, then 4 minutes of commercials. No tee shots, no approach shots…no feel for who is swinging well and who is not.

Such is life when you don’t control the cameras… ABC has maybe 9 cameras (at a normal state side event they’d have 40+) covering the Open. Most of the pictures you see are from the BBC which is more interested in catering to it’s home viewers than it is viewers in the States. ABC is doing the best it can with what it has to work with. And Ben Curtis is a great story so far, but I don’t give a shit how excited his father is watching the tournament in Ohio. What was he supposed to say, "Oh, is Ben playing well…I wasn’t watching, I was outside mowing the lawn".

Get over it and get used to it… Warm, fuzzy, feel good, schlock is all the rage these days. — Cheers- Jeff Setaro http://people.mags.net/jasetaro/ PGP Key IDs DH/DSS: 0×5D41429D RSA: 0×599D2A99 New RSA: 0xA19EBD34

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – nternet.com says… Does anyone else find ABC’s coverage as irrating as me? Show three putts, then 4 minutes of commercials. No tee shots, no approach shots…no feel for who is swinging well and who is not. Such is life when you don’t control the cameras… ABC has maybe 9 cameras (at a normal state side event they’d have 40+) covering the Open. Most of the pictures you see are from the BBC which is more interested in catering to it’s home viewers than it is viewers in the States. ABC is doing the best it can with what it has to work with. And Ben Curtis is a great story so far, but I don’t give a shit how excited his father is watching the tournament in Ohio. What was he supposed to say, "Oh, is Ben playing well…I wasn’t watching, I was outside mowing the lawn". Get over it and get used to it… Warm, fuzzy, feel good, schlock is all the rage these days. — Cheers- Jeff Setaro http://people.mags.net/jasetaro/ PGP Key IDs DH/DSS: 0×5D41429D RSA: 0×599D2A99 New RSA: 0xA19EBD34 Michael Eisner ( he of the gazillion

dollars and " honored member of the media ) is responsible of course…ABC tv another failure ( the chump e un ship net work )  so chincky incredible… When it c comes to yelling on the set between dumbass sports folks….yep they win that " champi0nship " As for coverage..i believe it sucks Before you complain, remember how it was – before you got on the internet.

Response:

Anybody else think that Steve Melnyk is the best golf announcer out there? Great pipes, knowledge and disposition.  OTOH, Curtis Strange’s accent is about to DRAHWV me crazy! Henway

Response:

I think he’s the worst.  His ego shows brightly through, and his affected talk makes me sick to my stomach.  Obviously, I don’t like him.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Anybody else think that Steve Melnyk is the best golf announcer out there? Great pipes, knowledge and disposition.  OTOH, Curtis Strange’s accent is about to DRAHWV me crazy! Henway

Response:

Anybody else think that Steve Melnyk is the best golf announcer out there? G

Johnny Miller is the best announcer.  He is not afraid to tell it like it is.

Response:

Anybody else think that Steve Melnyk is the best golf announcer out there? Great pipes, knowledge and disposition.  OTOH, Curtis Strange’s accent is about to DRAHWV me crazy!

Actually, I was thinking that I believe I’d rather listen to Curtis Strange than Johnny Miller.  Curtis knows just as much as Johnny Miller, but he’s much better composed– he’d never lose it like Miller did at the last Ryder Cup. — Jeff Rogers http://www.rogersnetwork.com/

Response:

To the person who first posted the thread, amen.  It’s been 15 minutes, I’ve seen, 5 shots by Tiger Woods, tee shot and approach by David Toms, but neither putt interestingly, and a putt by David Duval. I never really thought about it until I saw it posted….these guys suck!!!

Response:

I also forgot, on the 2nd hole, Woods hit a two iron in  good position…and Ian Baker-Finch enlightenened us :"Perfection from Tiger Woods"  A 2-iron in the fairway? Would there be *any* redeeming quality to the telecast without Peter Alliss? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – To the person who first posted the thread, amen.  It’s been 15 minutes, I’ve seen, 5 shots by Tiger Woods, tee shot and approach by David Toms, but neither putt interestingly, and a putt by David Duval. I never really thought about it until I saw it posted….these guys suck!!!

Response:

To the person who first posted the thread, amen.  It’s been 15 minutes, I’ve seen, 5 shots by Tiger Woods, tee shot and approach by David Toms, but neither putt interestingly, and a putt by David Duval. I never really thought about it until I saw it posted….these guys suck!!!

Yes, but at least it’s live, unlike the NBC "coverage" of Wimbledon, when they tried to con us by saying the women’s final was "coming up in a few hours", when it had been over for quite some time. My biggest complaint is the usual one. Not enough of the field, too much concentration on Tiger (and Duval today). I love that talkSPORT radio thing. Going back and forth from TV to radio works well. -Eric Ramon Portland, Oregon

Response:

To the person who first posted the thread, amen.  It’s been 15 minutes, I’ve seen, 5 shots by Tiger Woods, tee shot and approach by David Toms, but neither putt interestingly, and a putt by David Duval. I never really thought about it until I saw it posted….these guys suck!!!

On top of that, Woods was shown watching Toms put out on several occasions with no shot of Toms.  Utter shit! All I can say is that I’m glad it’s not close or we would have to listen to Jim McKay spouting his ridiculous "mano-a-mano" crap throughout the telecast. — Rancher

Response:

My biggest complaint is the usual one. Not enough of the field, too much concentration on Tiger (and Duval today). I love that talkSPORT radio thing. Going back and forth from TV to radio works well.

talkSPOTR Radio thing?  You’ll have to fill me in…I’m not sure what your talking about…

Response:

talkSPORT Radio thing?  You’ll have to fill me in…I’m not sure what your talking about…

There was a nice post the other day about this. Here’s the link. http://www.talksport.net/asx/talksport.asx

Response:

Anybody else think that Steve Melnyk is the best golf announcer out there? G Johnny Miller is the best announcer.  He is not afraid to tell it like it

is. maybe rick reilly will re-think his NFL job and come and do some golf:)

Response:

Peter Alliss is THE best. Johnny Miller?  Can he talk without slurring his words or stammering and stuttering? As far as ABC goes, I’m surprised we didn’t see Tiger coming in and out of the port-a-potty after 5.  That’s much more interesting to see than Fred Couples or Tom Lehman or Thomas Bjorn. Wish we had a BBC feed. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I also forgot, on the 2nd hole, Woods hit a two iron in  good position…and Ian Baker-Finch enlightenened us :"Perfection from Tiger Woods"  A 2-iron in the fairway? Would there be *any* redeeming quality to the telecast without Peter Alliss? To the person who first posted the thread, amen.  It’s been 15 minutes, I’ve seen, 5 shots by Tiger Woods, tee shot and approach by David Toms, but neither putt interestingly, and a putt by David Duval. I never really thought about it until I saw it posted….these guys suck!!!

Response:

On top of that, Woods was shown watching Toms put out on several occasions with no shot of Toms.

"put out"???? Ewww.  No wonder they didn’t show that.  Just how intently was Tiger watching? ; )

Response:

Anybody else think that Steve Melnyk is the best golf announcer out there? G Johnny Miller is the best announcer.  He is not afraid to tell it like it

is. Nor, to spout every other thought that rambles through his confused brain. He says some brilliant, informative things, but they don’t justify his constant motormouth.  Seriously, there’s something wrong with the guy.  It’s either a lack of, or too much medication.  He can’t shut up and it ruins the broadcasts.  Sort of a Tim McCarver. Venturi is lovable, but a bit past it.  Melnyk is happy to let the game dominate instead of turning it into his show.  I rarely notice the guy, which means he’s doing a good job.  And his voice is perfect. Of course, every announcer I think is brilliant gets fired (Joe Namath, Oscar Robertson) and every one I think is a retard (MADDEN!) becomes a broadcast legend.  So, I guess I am the only one that thinks Melnyk’s the best one out there these days.  Good luck, Steve!

Response:

Wish we had a BBC feed.

So do I. JC

Response:

Wish we had a BBC feed. So do I. JC

The feed, yes. Don’t know about the commentary! Rob — RSG Rollcall: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/hamiltonr.htm

Response:

Wish we had a BBC feed.

But then you’d have to listen to Jerry Pate who is unfortunately unable to string a logical sentence together. Nevermind the others who seem to think that if Tiger lands his second shot to a par four more than three inches from the whole, he’s experiencing major disaster Rachel. Time’s fun when you’re having flies                         – Kermit the frog.

Response:

more than three inches from the whole

argghh, that’d be *hole* wouldn’t it? :-p Rachel. Time’s fun when you’re having flies                         – Kermit the frog.

Response:

I’ve hated the way ABC has covered golf for many years. I watch a event to see players hit shots. You see about one shot a minute the way ABC does it. And if a player isn’t right on the lead, then you won’t see him. They try to make every thing so damm dramatic. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Peter Alliss is THE best. Johnny Miller?  Can he talk without slurring his words or stammering and stuttering? As far as ABC goes, I’m surprised we didn’t see Tiger coming in and out of the port-a-potty after 5.  That’s much more interesting to see than Fred Couples or Tom Lehman or Thomas Bjorn. Wish we had a BBC feed. I also forgot, on the 2nd hole, Woods hit a two iron in  good position…and Ian Baker-Finch enlightenened us :"Perfection from Tiger Woods"  A 2- iron in the fairway? Would there be *any* redeeming quality to the telecast without Peter Alliss? To the person who first posted the thread, amen.  It’s been 15 minutes, I’ve seen, 5 shots by Tiger Woods, tee shot and approach by David Toms, but neither putt interestingly, and a putt by David Duval. I never really thought about it until I saw it posted….these guys suck!!!

Before you buy.

Response:

Yes I agree, Tom Lehman was on about 3 times today, and he finished what 4th and hes a past champion.  They spend too much time watching the last 2 players walk to their ball, and forgot totally about the rest of the field.

Response:

At the RSG Masters this year I had 2 rounds with over 50 putts. Can’t recall that ever happening before!

Response:

Since I started keeping track, the worst I’ve done is 41.  Managed a 79 that day anyway, minor miracle. Chris

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well I believe I had probably the worst putting round of my life today.  I was at a tough little par 3 course. I hit 11 greens with a very tough wind,which is not too bad. I wish I could’ve hit more, but the problem was that I had 47 putts.  I finished up with an 18 over par 72.  I usually shoot even, 1 or 2 over on the course.  I missed putts from every distance, 3 feet, 2 feet…..  you name it.  So, I was wondering what your personal worst round for number of putts was, and what did you do to try to fix this? Yes, I know I have to practice, but did you buy new putters, different mental approach?

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well I believe I had probably the worst putting round of my life today. I was at a tough little par 3 course. I hit 11 greens with a very tough wind,which is not too bad. I wish I could’ve hit more, but the problem was that I had 47 putts.  I finished up with an 18 over par 72.  I usually shoot even, 1 or 2 over on the course.  I missed putts from every distance, 3 feet, 2 feet…..  you name it.  So, I was wondering what your personal worst round for number of putts was, and what did you do to try to fix this? Yes, I know I have to practice, but did you buy new putters, different mental approach?

Stats do not lie year avg.    worst  best 2000 42.29   45     38 2001 39.09   50     30 2002 35.65   41     31 2003 36.11   40     32 Cheers, -M-

Response:

Well I believe I had probably the worst putting round of my life today.  I was at a tough little par 3 course. I hit 11 greens with a very tough wind,which is not too bad. I wish I could’ve hit more, but the problem was that I had 47 putts.  I finished up with an 18 over par 72.  I usually shoot even, 1 or 2 over on the course.  I missed putts from every distance, 3 feet, 2 feet…..  you name it.  So, I was wondering what your personal worst round for number of putts was, and what did you do to try to fix this? Yes, I know I have to practice, but did you buy new putters, different mental approach?

Response:

Well I believe I had probably the worst putting round of my life today.  I was at a tough little par 3 course. I hit 11 greens with a very tough wind,which is not too bad. I wish I could’ve hit more, but the problem was that I had 47 putts.  I finished up with an 18 over par 72.  I usually shoot even, 1 or 2 over on the course.  I missed putts from every distance, 3 feet, 2 feet…..  you name it.  So, I was wondering what your personal worst round for number of putts was, and what did you do to try to fix this? Yes, I know I have to practice, but did you buy new putters, different mental approach?

I never thought about putting much until I started keeping shot stats.  I discovered that I was putting in the high forties (46 was the worst).  Like most golf fanatics, I have a whole slew of golf equipment in my garage so I switched putters.  I was using a mid-length Carbite and switched to a face-balanced mallet from Wilson (Blackjack, I think).  I also devoted more time on my putting during practice.  It’s amazing how quickly you can lose touch with your putter if you don’t practice for a few days….

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – There’s a commerical for a local golf equipment store (I think it’s local), where they’re showing a fellow teeing off, while talking about the store.  The guy takes a full swing tee shot to a par three, and the vantage point is from behind the green.  After the swing they pull back and focus on the green, presumably to watch the ball land. But what lands on the green instead is a big divot, with the tee still stuck in it.  Ha, ha. Well, I noticed a divot in front of a tee box yesterday — circular, maybe five inches around — with a tee in the middle.  Man, how ugly must that shot have been? Doug —  ___,  Doug Massey, ASIC Digital Logic Designer  o    IBM Microelectronics Division, Burlington, Vermont           |   |    Phone: (802)769-7095 t/l: 446-7095 fax: x6752                |  /                                                                |    .   My homepage:  http://doug.obscurestuff.com                  (|)

Response:

There’s a commerical for a local golf equipment store (I think it’s local), where they’re showing a fellow teeing off, while talking about the store.  The guy takes a full swing tee shot to a par three, and the vantage point is from behind the green.  After the swing they pull back and focus on the green, presumably to watch the ball land. But what lands on the green instead is a big divot, with the tee still stuck in it.  Ha, ha. Well, I noticed a divot in front of a tee box yesterday — circular, maybe five inches around — with a tee in the middle.  Man, how ugly must that shot have been? Doug —  ___,  Doug Massey, ASIC Digital Logic Designer  o    IBM Microelectronics Division, Burlington, Vermont           |   |    Phone: (802)769-7095 t/l: 446-7095 fax: x6752                |  /                                                                |    .   My homepage:  http://doug.obscurestuff.com                  (|)

Response:

I’m an Aussie coming to Long Beach (Seal Beach) to stay for about a week and would like to know of any recommendations you may have for a large golf equipment store that has a good selection at affordable prices. Can you help?? Name and address of the store would be appreciated. Thanks.

Response:

I’m an Aussie coming to Long Beach (Seal Beach) to stay for about a week and would like to know of any recommendations you may have for a large golf equipment store that has a good selection at affordable prices. Can you help?? Name and address of the store would be appreciated. Thanks.

Not from that area, but suggest you go to "yellow pages", set your location to Long Beach, CA, and search for: Don Sherwood Nevada Bob Edwin Watts Golfsmith or Golf and see what turns up

Response:

I’m an Aussie coming to Long Beach (Seal Beach) to stay for about a week and would like to know of any recommendations you may have for a large golf equipment store that has a good selection at affordable prices. Can you help?? Name and address of the store would be appreciated. Thanks.

Roger Dunn is a large golf supply company in the Los Angeles area. They have a store in Seal Beach. They have a larger store in Santa Ana that is not too far from Long Beach. http://www.rdgolf.com/main.html

Response: