I hate to be the guy to beat a dead horse, but if you're playing the wrong equipment you're not going to improve as fast as you could. If you're playing the wrong equipment for a lame reason, then it's even worse! By far, the #1 reason people give at my demo days for not trying or buying custom fit non-branded names is the resale value. Correct, RESALE VALUE of the clubs that they're going to buy because it improves their game. Why are people so concerned with the resale value of something that they will pay PREMIUM PRICE when new just to resell it and get something "better" another year down the road.
Sure, the resale value of an off-brand component set of irons is not going to be near the resale of a big name, but they're not going to be the same price at the start either. Let's launch a hypothetical....
Say you're fit to a no-name driver with a premium brand shaft. You are smashing the ball longer than you ever have, and straighter. It's a great club. Retails for $300 just for a nice round number.
You go out and are fit for a Tayloring XM 917 (see what i did there) and are hitting it the same as the No name club. Retail is $450-ish.
That's $150 difference. $150 that can go into lessons or maybe even 3 rounds of golf!
The brand names will come down in price, but ask yourself why that happens? To make way for new things. New gimmicks. New paychecks to the tour pros who play them. All of that affects resale anyway. You can get $200 for a club when it's still new, but basically half the price of new retail and that's what you're looking at. The older it gets, the worse that ratio gets too.
Money makes the world go 'round. Ever since people started trading trinkets for items, someone has tried to think up new ways to make people part with their scratch. The saturated golf market has made us all - even me at one point - think about what we're playing and tell ourselves that we NEED the new stuff. Real talk - Technology is maxed out. These gains they're making in COR and MOI are minute at best and, very much like paying $499 to gain 5 yards over your existing equipment, not worth the effort. Things like "multi material" technology were tried before but never caught on because we weren't into gimmicks back then. Things like the hybrid iron have been around for a long time, but now they're rebranding as a "crossover" and people are biting at a premium price.
Club manufacturers build a lot of clubs. Thousands. They send them all over the world and put all sorts of stickers and designs on them for rack appeal. Anyone who has tried to re-ell a club out there and done it, consider yourself lucky. A quick search on some popular sale and auction sites will show pages and pages and pages of the same club. Manufacturers know this, and they're the only ones making the money hand over fist. They advertise and pay players top dollar to play their gear all so hopefully you'll believe what they tell you. Ontop of that, you get to advertise for them for FREE with all your branded gear.
Bottom line, if it helps you hit the ball farther and straighter then by all means buy it, brand name or no. Just be sure you're testing everything before you do it and not JUST paying for a name. It's all smoke and mirrors and a good club builder will tell you that first hand. Go see your local guy and try some things out. I know you'll be glad you did.
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
No more lonely golfers?
Let's chat a little about the new ruling by golf's governing body. No longer will scores played alone be able to count towards a players handicap. Why? The reasoning is to curb "sandbagging" or posting higher scores in a bid to get more strokes during handicapped tournaments when a player is actually better than their 'cap.
In my opinion, this is one of those times where a new rule is not needed but rather where the old rules need better implementation. How does the USGA intend for this to be policed? What is in place to keep Player A from going out with a buddy or just with a random person and still posting a score that is not accurate? In a word - NOTHING. Very much like other hot topics of politics and rules, there is nothing to stop an evil person from being evil. They don't follow the rules anyway, like this is going to stop it? Short of verifying every single score, the ruling only serves to anger and penalize those who would follow the rules. I play a lot solo. I count every single stroke on rounds that post to my handicap, even when I'm the only one on the course. I take pride in what I shoot and constantly strive to be better. I'm as upset as anyone else when an 18 handicapper at my club posts a 73 in tournament play. "Best day I've ever had" they say. Sure it is. Still, it just sits in my gut the wrong way about this new ruling. Now when I - and honest to a fault golfer - get the chance to spontaneously play because my wife has last minute plans with her girls, I need to make sure I'm paired up with someone in order for my round to count. I've had some bumper days alone too. Days where everything clicks and I'm just in the zone. No more.
I suppose I should be glad though - those rounds won't count and my handicap might balloon. That being said, it would no longer be an accurate representation of my abilities as a golfer. It will be my abilities on days when I was able to find someone to golf with. If last year is any indication, I'll be south about 15 rounds of golf for my handicap. Some high, some low. Not a great cross section when you only get to play maybe 35 rounds in a year. *sigh*. Come on, USGA. We're supposed to be growing the game, not making it annoying.
Read the whole story here:
http://www.golf.com/golf-plus/usgas-ruling-solo-round-real-handicap
In my opinion, this is one of those times where a new rule is not needed but rather where the old rules need better implementation. How does the USGA intend for this to be policed? What is in place to keep Player A from going out with a buddy or just with a random person and still posting a score that is not accurate? In a word - NOTHING. Very much like other hot topics of politics and rules, there is nothing to stop an evil person from being evil. They don't follow the rules anyway, like this is going to stop it? Short of verifying every single score, the ruling only serves to anger and penalize those who would follow the rules. I play a lot solo. I count every single stroke on rounds that post to my handicap, even when I'm the only one on the course. I take pride in what I shoot and constantly strive to be better. I'm as upset as anyone else when an 18 handicapper at my club posts a 73 in tournament play. "Best day I've ever had" they say. Sure it is. Still, it just sits in my gut the wrong way about this new ruling. Now when I - and honest to a fault golfer - get the chance to spontaneously play because my wife has last minute plans with her girls, I need to make sure I'm paired up with someone in order for my round to count. I've had some bumper days alone too. Days where everything clicks and I'm just in the zone. No more.
I suppose I should be glad though - those rounds won't count and my handicap might balloon. That being said, it would no longer be an accurate representation of my abilities as a golfer. It will be my abilities on days when I was able to find someone to golf with. If last year is any indication, I'll be south about 15 rounds of golf for my handicap. Some high, some low. Not a great cross section when you only get to play maybe 35 rounds in a year. *sigh*. Come on, USGA. We're supposed to be growing the game, not making it annoying.
Read the whole story here:
http://www.golf.com/golf-plus/usgas-ruling-solo-round-real-handicap
 |
| Nobody for miles and miles...... ahhhhhhhhhh. |
Monday, December 21, 2015
Use air to dial in your grips
So we talked a little last time about the types of grips... Thing is, grips are expensive. Well, some are. Still, we can't just spend a bunch to re-grip and then spend a bunch more to get them changed if we don't like it so what do we do? Well, at The Club Nut we work with you to dial in exactly what you need. I use air to dial in the size for your grips and allow a "grip demo" if you will. Once the size is dialed in, then it's onto the double sided tape, or you can just use them as is. Observe!
Sunday, December 20, 2015
How much time do you put into your grips?
Grips are an overlooked item in golf. Most players basically let them go because they're buying new equipment every other year and just trading them in. the problem with this is that standard isn't always standard. Most clubs come with a branded version of the Tour velvet grip. It's a great grip, don't get me wrong, but there are so many other options out there. You're only a quick shopping trip from getting the best grip from you and being the most comfortable in your game.
There are so many options out there for different shapes, sizes, colors, textures and even weights. Don't get sucked in by the one size fits all.. Why do companies put the same grip on? Because they're cheap and a decent all around grip. Remember: Retail sales are about what fits most people and what they can sell the most of. One size fits most is never going to get you the game you want. Take a watch below if you're new to the golf gripping game or even if you have some years under your belt. Maybe you've never thought about your grips.
There are so many options out there for different shapes, sizes, colors, textures and even weights. Don't get sucked in by the one size fits all.. Why do companies put the same grip on? Because they're cheap and a decent all around grip. Remember: Retail sales are about what fits most people and what they can sell the most of. One size fits most is never going to get you the game you want. Take a watch below if you're new to the golf gripping game or even if you have some years under your belt. Maybe you've never thought about your grips.
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
The importance of proper flex - The trebuchet
Most of the subject of fitting and club choice is centered around shaft flex. There have to be 10,000 articles on the internet for this if there's one, so why write another one. There is a method to my madness, and I feel that with some exceptions, shaft flex and manipulation thereof is misunderstood. More often than not, the words "you swing this fast, so we'll put you in a ____ flex". While that is important, using swing speed as the only indicator of needed flex will leave the player with potentially only half the performance they COULD have. The reason being: tempo is a large factor when determining equipment needs.
When the swing is initiated, the shaft is loaded. Someone with a fast tempo will aggressively load the shaft requiring a firmer flex than someone with smooth acceleration to achieve the same kick through the ball. In addition, swing speed can increase with the proper flex or decrease with improper fit. The only way to find the right shaft is to hit the club and evaluate the feel. There are really no numbers to distinguish a standard for "reguar" and "stiff" across manufacturers. The closest comparison scale would be CPM or Cycles Per Minute. In this way, an exact number for each shaft can be recorded and each flex designation can be compared and the proper fit can be achieved. So this is all old news to you... OK no worries... but we're here to talk about why this is important.
Many studies have shown that swing speed decreases slightly before impact. It's a byproduct of physiology for a normal swing. The AMOUNT that it decreases differs depending on where that shaft is around the impact area and how you release your hands. Shafts flex and re-flex during the swing. Usually, with a driver, that shaft is flexing towards the ball slightly and is releasing all it's energy into the ball through the clubface. This is done by "Braking the swing" or "throwing the club" as some teachers will describe it. You may have also heard "hitting against a strong left side (right handed)". Explanation is for right handed golfers. Just flip it for lefties - What this means is that as the swing motion happens, the left leg becomes the pivot and essentially puts the brakes on the swing, allowing the arms and wrists to create MORE speed as the energy transfer moves through the grip and shaft and into the ball. The best way to illustrate this is to use a trebuchet - a medieval device used to hurl large objects very far away. "But why not a catapault?" you ask? Because a catapult is a fixed fulcrum and just using the flex of the shaft to hurl the ball. The trebuchet has moving parts that perfectly mimic the golf swing --- well, if you turn it upside down. Watch below it's the best to illustrate what i'm talking about. While you view, imagine the wood arm of the trebuchet is your arms and wrists, the rope is the shaft of the golf club. Notice, as the energy peaks, the trebuchet arm STOPS but the rope keeps moving and releases the stored energy (and the rock) ultimately hurling the object 100s of feet. Turn it upside down and you'll realize that this STOP point is roughly the same as in a golf swing. Your arms just keep moving forward because let's face it - if you stopped a full golf swing like that, your shoulders would probably dislocate and you'd blow out a knee.
OK so what does all this have to do with shaft flex? Well, a proper swing is how you get the shaft to flex and a proper swing is how you get the shaft to transfer power. If this is something you can't do - bad knees, bad back, just slow speed in general -- you need a shaft that will load and unload easier and help to get the maximum performance out of your club. Having a shaft that is too stiff means that even if you're aggressive in loading it, you may not be able to have it UNLOAD properly since you have to maintain that speed and put the brakes on aggressively. That stiffness will cause it to unload the power early - robbing you of distance. Same with a shaft that is too flexible. At the point where the brakes go on, it may have way too much energy and will not unflex efficiently to transfer that power, resulting in loss of distance and accuracy.
So what does all this mean? Well - OEMs make "whole flex" shafts as I like to call them. R, S, Firm, X, etc. They have no interest in getting particular with a shaft because it doesn't fit the market. They want to sell as many clubs to the widest array of people. An R flex will most likely work for you, but between R and S there are a multitude of flexes. Maybe removing 1/2" from the tip is a perfect stiffness for you. Maybe your optimal is JUST UNDER R flex? Just Under or over Stiff? Maybe it's just adding 1 swingweight point to your driver, making it the perfect flex and weight. Remember, lighter isn't always better and faster.
See a competent fitter and hit some different shafts. Even message me for some brain-picking if you want. The difference between hitting more fairways and hitting longer drives doesn't simply rest in a new $500 driver. It may be just taking that old trusty club and adding a little tweak. Use the money you save for beer.
When the swing is initiated, the shaft is loaded. Someone with a fast tempo will aggressively load the shaft requiring a firmer flex than someone with smooth acceleration to achieve the same kick through the ball. In addition, swing speed can increase with the proper flex or decrease with improper fit. The only way to find the right shaft is to hit the club and evaluate the feel. There are really no numbers to distinguish a standard for "reguar" and "stiff" across manufacturers. The closest comparison scale would be CPM or Cycles Per Minute. In this way, an exact number for each shaft can be recorded and each flex designation can be compared and the proper fit can be achieved. So this is all old news to you... OK no worries... but we're here to talk about why this is important.
Many studies have shown that swing speed decreases slightly before impact. It's a byproduct of physiology for a normal swing. The AMOUNT that it decreases differs depending on where that shaft is around the impact area and how you release your hands. Shafts flex and re-flex during the swing. Usually, with a driver, that shaft is flexing towards the ball slightly and is releasing all it's energy into the ball through the clubface. This is done by "Braking the swing" or "throwing the club" as some teachers will describe it. You may have also heard "hitting against a strong left side (right handed)". Explanation is for right handed golfers. Just flip it for lefties - What this means is that as the swing motion happens, the left leg becomes the pivot and essentially puts the brakes on the swing, allowing the arms and wrists to create MORE speed as the energy transfer moves through the grip and shaft and into the ball. The best way to illustrate this is to use a trebuchet - a medieval device used to hurl large objects very far away. "But why not a catapault?" you ask? Because a catapult is a fixed fulcrum and just using the flex of the shaft to hurl the ball. The trebuchet has moving parts that perfectly mimic the golf swing --- well, if you turn it upside down. Watch below it's the best to illustrate what i'm talking about. While you view, imagine the wood arm of the trebuchet is your arms and wrists, the rope is the shaft of the golf club. Notice, as the energy peaks, the trebuchet arm STOPS but the rope keeps moving and releases the stored energy (and the rock) ultimately hurling the object 100s of feet. Turn it upside down and you'll realize that this STOP point is roughly the same as in a golf swing. Your arms just keep moving forward because let's face it - if you stopped a full golf swing like that, your shoulders would probably dislocate and you'd blow out a knee.
The next video is this notion in practice. Long drivers, and Dustin Johnson being the best example. Notice the lag of the club and right at the bottom, the player puts on the brakes with the left leg, throwing that club through and that poor ball can't do a thing about it. Notice the leg straightens and his foot even moves back a little bit. the hips PAUSE then keep moving through. It's an upward motion to stop the swing, very much like (if you turn this video upside down) the downward motion of the weights in the trebuchet. If you flip the top video upside down, the mechanics are the same.
OK so what does all this have to do with shaft flex? Well, a proper swing is how you get the shaft to flex and a proper swing is how you get the shaft to transfer power. If this is something you can't do - bad knees, bad back, just slow speed in general -- you need a shaft that will load and unload easier and help to get the maximum performance out of your club. Having a shaft that is too stiff means that even if you're aggressive in loading it, you may not be able to have it UNLOAD properly since you have to maintain that speed and put the brakes on aggressively. That stiffness will cause it to unload the power early - robbing you of distance. Same with a shaft that is too flexible. At the point where the brakes go on, it may have way too much energy and will not unflex efficiently to transfer that power, resulting in loss of distance and accuracy.
So what does all this mean? Well - OEMs make "whole flex" shafts as I like to call them. R, S, Firm, X, etc. They have no interest in getting particular with a shaft because it doesn't fit the market. They want to sell as many clubs to the widest array of people. An R flex will most likely work for you, but between R and S there are a multitude of flexes. Maybe removing 1/2" from the tip is a perfect stiffness for you. Maybe your optimal is JUST UNDER R flex? Just Under or over Stiff? Maybe it's just adding 1 swingweight point to your driver, making it the perfect flex and weight. Remember, lighter isn't always better and faster.
See a competent fitter and hit some different shafts. Even message me for some brain-picking if you want. The difference between hitting more fairways and hitting longer drives doesn't simply rest in a new $500 driver. It may be just taking that old trusty club and adding a little tweak. Use the money you save for beer.
Friday, October 2, 2015
Let's talk rules, sportsmanship, and gamesmanship
It's not even possible to open my web browser to anything golf related and NOT see Suzanne Pettersen in some sort of interview about "the gimme heard round the world (nor not)". If you're not privy to this information yet, here's the short version:
Allison Lee was lining up a putt to win the 17th hole and put the U.S. 1up in the match. Lee missed the putt, leaving about 18 inches for the half. European Charlie Hull begins walking toward Suzanne who is standing at the far end of the green near the ropes to go to the next hole. Lee picks up her ball, thinking it was conceded. Pettersen stops and states that Europe never conceded the putt and under rule 2-6 in match play, since Lee lifted her ball not in accordance with the rules (not marked, and not conceded) it's a general penalty of loss of hole. Europe goes 1up.
OK now you're caught up. Let's talk about the long version right now. This is not a debate, it is a statement of facts, and why it happened. It's also laced with my opinion on the current controversy iron maiden that Suzanne Pettersen is currently enduring for no good reason other than to save face in the court of public opinion - which apparently holds more sway than most things these days.
Currently, the universe is pretty upset with Suzanne. Furious, actually. In most viewers' eyes she is akin to the devil for playing tricks on poor, young, Allison Lee while the rest of the viewers think she's a downright cheat. I'm going to say this right now, and you can think however you'd like of it. Suzanne did nothing wrong. It's as simple as that. Gamesmanship - what took place here - happens all the time in golf. The layman's definition of Gamesmanship is basically doing something a little shady - but not illegal - to get a competitive edge. Very much like "oh that's a big lake over there" or "dont' want to go right here" spewing from your gullet at your buddies while you try to win your weekend $5 nassau. Further, do a Google search sometime and read how Tiger Woods would game guys all the time. Walking fast ahead of someone who's having a bad hole forcing them to quicken their tempo and their game to keep up. Walking slower to get someone out of their pace of good play. That's ALL gamesmanship of one sort or another. Even calling for a measurement of who's away just to get in someone's head or make them putt first. Questionable actions - maybe, depending what side of it you're on - but all perfectly legal and within the rules. What we have here is that Allison Lee fell for a well played bit of hard gamesmanship. Right down to Charlie Hull walking over to talk to Pettersen. To look at it objectively, there may not have been any gamesmanship at all - the team may just have wanted to converse quickly before the next hole.
Rule 2-4 in match play states: "A player may concede a match at any time prior to the start or conclusion of that match. A player may concede a hole at any time prior to the start or conclusion of that hole. A player may concede his opponent's next stroke at any time, provided the opponent's ball is at rest. The opponent is considered to have holed out with his next stroke, and the ball may be removed by either side. A concession may not be declined or withdrawn". Pretty straight forward. The key piece of information in all of this is that no concession was made by Europe. Even the act of walking away like the putt is good, is not a substitution for making a statement like "pick it up" or "that's good" or the non-ambiguous "stroke conceded". It's not even reasonable to believe that would count since nowhere in the rules is a gesture ever acknowledged as an acceptable indication of play (obviously unless you're using sign language - but don't go there). Intent is big in golf. What Lee should have done was ask "Is this good then?". Even if she thinks she heard SOMEONE say it's good, unless she was absolutely sure it was Hull or Pettersen it is on her to ask. No one but your fellow competitor may concede a putt. Not even their caddy. Even Pettersen can be heard saying "I don't know if it was someone in the crowd, but we didn't say it".
Now, that being said, was what happened moral in my eyes? Nah, not really. Was it in the spirit of the game? Mehhhhhhh......not as I would interpret it. With all that said, still there was nothing wrong with it and she doesn't deserve the flak she's getting. Was it painful to watch... most certainly. Most people say Suzanne should have showed sportsmanship by allowing the gimme after it was in question. Those people probably hate rules, keeping score, and love when participation trophies are given out for kid's teams too.
Using sportsmanship to get around rules creates a lot of unknowns. It sets a dangerous precedent too.
Is it sportsmanlike to let someone pull their ball off hardpan that's not marked as GUR? I mean, you should really be able to play off grass all the time, even if it's rough. How about letting your competitor rake a footprint from a previous group in a bunker and replace his ball for a good lie. Hell no you wouldn't do that and you know it. You'd take that advantage. Europe didn't agree that she "probably would have made it anyway". Unknowns don't go well in golf - terms like "known or virtually certain" being in the rule book a number of times. Still, say Pettersen says "oh yea, it's fine" in an amazing show of sportsmanship to the US and they go on to halve the match or even lose and that gesture turns out to be pivotal. What about her team mates?
Suzanne did you tell her she could have that put?
Well, no, but it was confusing so I just said it was OK after the fact. She thought we did.
So you didn't stand by the facts and just let them back in the match?
Is it sportsmanship to throw one's entire team under the bus just because a competitor had a lapse in judgement? Not in this case. She stood by the facts that she knew. The fact is that it was never conceded. Even in 1999 when Payne Stewart conceded to Colin Montgomerie in the Ryder Cup match because the fans were just DESTROYING Monty and being classless overall-- that could have been a VERY different story. Very different overall in fact, as the US would have already gotten the cup by the time the events of the Infamous 17th hole would have happened. I guess 17th holes are just bad for shows of sportsmanship in general. In the case of the Solheim Cup, however, the only ones to blame are the officials on this one and here's why:
The moment this happened, in equity, we should have jumped to Decision 2-4/3 in match play: Player Lifts Ball in Mistaken Belief That Next Stroke Conceded. Regardless of whether or not the stroke was conceded, the necessary doubt was there. Lee heard it from SOMEWHERE that it was good - we have to take her on her word on it as golfers. Couple that with Hull walking away. While not an indication on its own, that gesture coupled with the words spoken in a loud arena could lead to someone thinking they're in the right without that second thought. THAT is where the issue lies. Hell, even the official thought for whatever reason that it was conceded when he made the announcement. As officials, they failed the players in this instance. This is without a doubt exactly why that decision was put in the rule book. Before you sit there and mouth "nobody can know all the rules, Chris. Not even officials" - HOLD UP - it's 2015. I have the rules on my phone and I don't know about you, but I can look up any situation in pretty much 10 seconds...and do.... very often when something is in question. Why are the officials not able to do this? Basically because nobody wants to take responsibility for anything, I'd wager. My question is: Why don't they just KNOW this. You're an official in the match play championship. Brush up, son. It's akin to knowing what to do with white, yellow, or red stakes. Second nature. There's no way it should have gone further and no way it should have ended like it did.
Of course... would the US have come back as well without a rallying cry? That's another debate altogether. I'd like to think so, my girls got game!
Allison Lee was lining up a putt to win the 17th hole and put the U.S. 1up in the match. Lee missed the putt, leaving about 18 inches for the half. European Charlie Hull begins walking toward Suzanne who is standing at the far end of the green near the ropes to go to the next hole. Lee picks up her ball, thinking it was conceded. Pettersen stops and states that Europe never conceded the putt and under rule 2-6 in match play, since Lee lifted her ball not in accordance with the rules (not marked, and not conceded) it's a general penalty of loss of hole. Europe goes 1up.
OK now you're caught up. Let's talk about the long version right now. This is not a debate, it is a statement of facts, and why it happened. It's also laced with my opinion on the current controversy iron maiden that Suzanne Pettersen is currently enduring for no good reason other than to save face in the court of public opinion - which apparently holds more sway than most things these days.
Currently, the universe is pretty upset with Suzanne. Furious, actually. In most viewers' eyes she is akin to the devil for playing tricks on poor, young, Allison Lee while the rest of the viewers think she's a downright cheat. I'm going to say this right now, and you can think however you'd like of it. Suzanne did nothing wrong. It's as simple as that. Gamesmanship - what took place here - happens all the time in golf. The layman's definition of Gamesmanship is basically doing something a little shady - but not illegal - to get a competitive edge. Very much like "oh that's a big lake over there" or "dont' want to go right here" spewing from your gullet at your buddies while you try to win your weekend $5 nassau. Further, do a Google search sometime and read how Tiger Woods would game guys all the time. Walking fast ahead of someone who's having a bad hole forcing them to quicken their tempo and their game to keep up. Walking slower to get someone out of their pace of good play. That's ALL gamesmanship of one sort or another. Even calling for a measurement of who's away just to get in someone's head or make them putt first. Questionable actions - maybe, depending what side of it you're on - but all perfectly legal and within the rules. What we have here is that Allison Lee fell for a well played bit of hard gamesmanship. Right down to Charlie Hull walking over to talk to Pettersen. To look at it objectively, there may not have been any gamesmanship at all - the team may just have wanted to converse quickly before the next hole.
Rule 2-4 in match play states: "A player may concede a match at any time prior to the start or conclusion of that match. A player may concede a hole at any time prior to the start or conclusion of that hole. A player may concede his opponent's next stroke at any time, provided the opponent's ball is at rest. The opponent is considered to have holed out with his next stroke, and the ball may be removed by either side. A concession may not be declined or withdrawn". Pretty straight forward. The key piece of information in all of this is that no concession was made by Europe. Even the act of walking away like the putt is good, is not a substitution for making a statement like "pick it up" or "that's good" or the non-ambiguous "stroke conceded". It's not even reasonable to believe that would count since nowhere in the rules is a gesture ever acknowledged as an acceptable indication of play (obviously unless you're using sign language - but don't go there). Intent is big in golf. What Lee should have done was ask "Is this good then?". Even if she thinks she heard SOMEONE say it's good, unless she was absolutely sure it was Hull or Pettersen it is on her to ask. No one but your fellow competitor may concede a putt. Not even their caddy. Even Pettersen can be heard saying "I don't know if it was someone in the crowd, but we didn't say it".
Now, that being said, was what happened moral in my eyes? Nah, not really. Was it in the spirit of the game? Mehhhhhhh......not as I would interpret it. With all that said, still there was nothing wrong with it and she doesn't deserve the flak she's getting. Was it painful to watch... most certainly. Most people say Suzanne should have showed sportsmanship by allowing the gimme after it was in question. Those people probably hate rules, keeping score, and love when participation trophies are given out for kid's teams too.
Using sportsmanship to get around rules creates a lot of unknowns. It sets a dangerous precedent too.
Is it sportsmanlike to let someone pull their ball off hardpan that's not marked as GUR? I mean, you should really be able to play off grass all the time, even if it's rough. How about letting your competitor rake a footprint from a previous group in a bunker and replace his ball for a good lie. Hell no you wouldn't do that and you know it. You'd take that advantage. Europe didn't agree that she "probably would have made it anyway". Unknowns don't go well in golf - terms like "known or virtually certain" being in the rule book a number of times. Still, say Pettersen says "oh yea, it's fine" in an amazing show of sportsmanship to the US and they go on to halve the match or even lose and that gesture turns out to be pivotal. What about her team mates?
Suzanne did you tell her she could have that put?
Well, no, but it was confusing so I just said it was OK after the fact. She thought we did.
So you didn't stand by the facts and just let them back in the match?
Is it sportsmanship to throw one's entire team under the bus just because a competitor had a lapse in judgement? Not in this case. She stood by the facts that she knew. The fact is that it was never conceded. Even in 1999 when Payne Stewart conceded to Colin Montgomerie in the Ryder Cup match because the fans were just DESTROYING Monty and being classless overall-- that could have been a VERY different story. Very different overall in fact, as the US would have already gotten the cup by the time the events of the Infamous 17th hole would have happened. I guess 17th holes are just bad for shows of sportsmanship in general. In the case of the Solheim Cup, however, the only ones to blame are the officials on this one and here's why:
The moment this happened, in equity, we should have jumped to Decision 2-4/3 in match play: Player Lifts Ball in Mistaken Belief That Next Stroke Conceded. Regardless of whether or not the stroke was conceded, the necessary doubt was there. Lee heard it from SOMEWHERE that it was good - we have to take her on her word on it as golfers. Couple that with Hull walking away. While not an indication on its own, that gesture coupled with the words spoken in a loud arena could lead to someone thinking they're in the right without that second thought. THAT is where the issue lies. Hell, even the official thought for whatever reason that it was conceded when he made the announcement. As officials, they failed the players in this instance. This is without a doubt exactly why that decision was put in the rule book. Before you sit there and mouth "nobody can know all the rules, Chris. Not even officials" - HOLD UP - it's 2015. I have the rules on my phone and I don't know about you, but I can look up any situation in pretty much 10 seconds...and do.... very often when something is in question. Why are the officials not able to do this? Basically because nobody wants to take responsibility for anything, I'd wager. My question is: Why don't they just KNOW this. You're an official in the match play championship. Brush up, son. It's akin to knowing what to do with white, yellow, or red stakes. Second nature. There's no way it should have gone further and no way it should have ended like it did.
Of course... would the US have come back as well without a rallying cry? That's another debate altogether. I'd like to think so, my girls got game!
Friday, September 11, 2015
My day with a Monsta......
PROLOGUE AND RAMBLES:
Being a perfectionist and knowing that there is not just one road to reach perfection, I tend to look to the "little guys" a lot for new ideas and better products. The reason is because sometimes we just get caught up in the money, fame, and flash of the big guys. They spend millions upon millions each year to research not only performance, but what people want to look at. It's called "rack appeal" and it happens all the time with clubs. Not so much with balls, however - well- outside of the packaging that is. A flashy box always helps, but what's inside is a little white sphere with dimples that has the unfortunate purpose of being smashed as hard as possible with a heavy piece of metal - repeatedly - until it's discarded or lost. The former - smashing as hard as possible - is what makes us want a premium performance ball. The latter is what makes us not want to pay a premium for it. Enter the "little guy". This time around, it's MonstaGolf.
From their site:
""Monsta Golf started as an idea back in the spring of 2013 by 2 working dads from Boston who love the game of golf. Dave and Ken, the founders of Monsta Golf, realize(like most of us) the key to an exceptional golf game is consistency and the short game. Money is in the short game, as we all know. Using the same golf ball while honing your skills is an important factor in being consistent. Almost every brand of golf ball performs differently, especially around the greens. This causes variations in accuracy and performance. Some golf balls are for distance, some for spin. The top performing brands currently on the market that are constructed to do both, retail for $48/dozen or more. Golf can be expensive enough!
“We need to create a pro performance golf ball that’s affordable, so it can be used every round you play. Allowing the development of a more consistant game and control around the greens. In addition, we don’t want to cringe every time we lose a $4-$5 ball in the woods.” (Yes, this will probably happen no matter what ball you use!)
FAST FORWARD A YEAR LATER AND MONSTA GOLF IS BORN."
I couldn't have said it better myself --- so I copied and pasted. Hey, I've got things to do, clubs to build and cigars to smoke. I digress....
MonstaGolf intriqued me from the get-go. I saw them on twitter (@monstagolf) and followed them to Facebook (facebook.com/monstagolf) and stalked their feed reading all the stuff people were saying about them. I got on some of my own forums and asked around if anybody had tried them. The people who had couldn't say enough about them. There were even people who said they had tried them and though they're not the go-to ball, are still using them on occasion. That tells me there's got to be something to them.
About me: If you've been following the blog - few and far between as it sometimes is (hey I'm busy!!!) you know that I'm a decent player. I'm currently playing off 3.7 (GHIN#2111361) and I get out maybe once per week. I've been playing a LONG time and I'm pretty sure I'm one of a handful of people under 45 who have actually used persimmon clubs in a tournament because that was still the only technology out there. So, I know something about feel and the like, on top of being a club builder. My current ball bobbles between a ProV1 and the Callaway SR3 (what's left of them). They're both pretty comparable for me but I tend to play the ProV1 on drier days since I do get a little more spin on the greens, and the Callaway flies longer so I get more carry in normal to wet conditions. Both retail around $45 for the dozen and have very soft covers so you can imagine that I'm always looking to save a few bucks.
THE REVIEW - AS COMPARED TO MY PROV1: If you want the hard facts just go to the end. If not, hang on for the story. For the record, I paid for these balls and the only reason I'm doing a review is because I like to do them. My style is putting you in a story setting and allowing you to follow me and the way I play. Real life is the only way to test, in my opinion. Talk it out- nitpick - whatever. If you want numbers, there's like 20 other sites that have compression and yardage numbers you can pick at.
 |
| oooooh Shiny. |
So anyway.....
I pulled the trigger on MonstaGolf balls just this week. Out of Massachusetts they got here to PA in 2 days via USPS. Free shipping as well. Great start for those of us who don't like to pay shipping that's a big one. I opted for the "naked" dozen. No packaging. You can call me green, but the difference between $32.99 and $34.99 is enough to prompt me to skip the shiny black box and Green Monsta eye. If you like to think I did it solely for the environment, please do.
As I opened them, I was really impressed. Very nice cover which had that "sticky ball" feel to it. (Insert joke about sticky balls here) It was pleasing to look at with the big green logo and single number. Very clean and minimalistic. The aim stripe is just two arrows with MonstaGolf written in. Very easy to line up for putting or tee ball. Not too long and not short like some other balls. I took to putting right away putting it right up against a proV1 and a ProV1x that I had. Both brand new - hey we gotta be fair.
Immediately I could feel that the MonstaGolf was soft. Super soft. I use an all metal putter with no insert so I felt everything. Dead heat with the ProV1, softer than V1X. I liked it. I even did a blind test where I closed my eyes and had a friend put them down in front of my putter to strike. I picked out the same two balls but couldn't tell which was which.
Since it was still evening and I didn't tee off until the next day, I decided for the "wedge bounce test". You know, the old Tiger Woods juggle it off the blade and then between the legs - just without the 200 yard rocket at the end. Here's where the balls started to differ. The MonstaGolf felt soft. Almost TOO soft, but it wasn't a disgusting marshmallow feel. I could feel the ball but it had a hint of a "thud". The PV1 was soft but more "crisp". In non-golf terms and assuming you've eaten both of these, it was the difference between biting a Red Delicious apple and a Mcintosh. The red delicious has a softer bite but still good and hearty - where as the Mc is a touch more snappy. At this point, it didn't bother me but it's worth noting if you're a player that likes a harder feeling ball like a TopFlite Gamer or the like. Seeing as how they both have urethane covers, I believe the MonstaGolf is thicker in this regard. I'll explain later.....
 |
| LOL - googly eyes |
Flash forward to my round. Dauphin Highlands Golf Course. We're playing the whites (myself, Cigar Joe , and a friend Dave). On the putting green I put 2 balls down and putted. Drained them both from 10 feet. Was it the ball or was it me, dunno, but I did have confidence looking down and reading "MonstaGolf"with those heavy black arrows saying - this way to the hole. Pre-round I also chipped in 4 times out of 10. The balls grabbed the green like velcro - no exaggeration - even on the little chips so I had to hit my chips to carry a little farther than normal because they weren't running out as much as with the PV1 but it was consistent so once I got used to it things were no problem. MGB gets the square here because more spin around the green is always a plus in my book.
On the tee, I set it up so I was looking right into that green eye. It was a great focus point and since it was like a smaller ball I felt it was the literal interpretation of "aim small, miss small". I didn't miss. My first drive was a touch on the toe and fading but SkyCaddy measured it at 317yds. I'll take that. There was very little side spin when I KNOW there should have been more. Instead of the right rough just off the fairway I SHOULD have been by the cart path 10 yards farther right. Intriguing.
2nd shot was a 58* wedge to a tucked pin. I was so stoked for the drive that I plopped it in the bunker short. Perfect to test the sand capabilities and durability. If anything destroys a Urethane cover it's a sand trap. I played a perfect splash from 30 feet to settle 3 feet from the pin. One hop and stop. Ball completely in tact.
 |
| Initial look after the long bunker shot. Sand still lodged in. |
2nd hole it performed very well off the tee again, although i skunked the shot and ended up in the bunker about 60 yards in front of the green on the fly (drivable par 4- 270 yards). You'd think I was doing it on purpose to test a ball or something. I used a 54* wedge to play the long bunker shot into the green. I hit it to roughly 12 feet but upon picking up the ball I noticed it had a large grain of sand lodged in the cover. I expected this out of the first bunker but my thoughts are that the resilient thick cover provides nice cushion against this sort of thing where normally the thin cover of the PV1 nicks or gets some sand burn. A harder swing was enough to embed the sand though. I was able to dig it out and remove the piece of cover that was torn and play on. Through the next holes the ball performed EXACTLY as it had the first two. I even put a new ball in play just as a for-instance but saw no flight issues due to the deep puncture in the cover.
 |
| A few holes after I removed the "scab" cover and dug out the grit piece. |
Iron feel is solid and regarding the "thunk" of the wedge bounce test - that wasn't really an issue once you actually were swinging at the ball. Chips felt good, like the ball was compressing well and it JUMPS off of irons. I really felt like I had compression on the face and got very good flight out of it. No ballooning, but still retaining the pretty wicked spin I experienced at the chipping green throughout all the irons. I guess theres' something to that 3 piece construction and high energy core they talk about.
Here's where the review gets short because I've told you all I can about the performance of the ball. The reason being it was so consistent. It was consistent with itself from brand new until the last shot, and it was consistent with the ProV1 that I'm very used to with the difference being more spin from the MGB on the little chip shots. I would go so far as to say it's a little difficult to get it to run out with a lofted club - but I'm not going to complain about that.
I think the one thing I can say I honestly DISLIKE about the MonstaGolf ball is it's visual durability in relation to other premium golf balls. I think this is where it loses the race. The ball gets dingy. Like REALLY dingy. When I play a full round with a golf ball, it gets battered and the like but when I wash it, generally it gets clean. Over the course of the round, the ball got to LOOKING chewed up. it was still very much playable and very much performing perfectly but it really started to kind of look like a monster. If I could equate it to something, maybe like a refurbished ball that was hit too many times and the paint started to come off the raised areas? Even while we were looking for the balls and rolling up to it in the cart, I had no problem identifying mine because that shine was lost. I don't know if I'm OK with that or not because they really look USED after one round, whereas I can get 2, sometimes 3 out of the same ball otherwise. Believe me, I'm still going to play it again, but it's a peeve, maybe even a deal breaker for some people. Even my buddy Dave said "that thing looks awful".
 |
| 18 holes, 1 ball. The "reconditioned ball" scabs I was referencing. All over. Are these balls painted? |
FINAL TALLY:
Overall performance: It is my opinion that MonstaGolf balls perform on par with a premium golf ball. In this case the ProV1 (grey stripe). MonstaGolf has a little more spin for me around the greens and is sometimes difficult to release to the hole - which may be an issue for some golfers if they like to chip and run. You might need a lower lofted club to play some of your normal shots. There was no drop in performance throughout the entire round despite the blemishing.
Look: Awesome minimalist logo design and a nice focal point for the tee ball. Alignment aid isn't obnoxious and does the job in lining up putts or tee balls if you prefer that. One additional thing I feel the need to mention is that there is no all white area on this ball. From every angle you will see either the aim mark, the number, or a good portion of the green eye. I don't mind because you can immediately identify it even in the rough, but some people do like that one area where you look down and see white ball.
Durability: I feel the ball could be more durable over the course of the round. The fact that it can take a hit like a large piece of sand from a bunker and not make a big gouge out of the cover or begin peeling of after being hit a few times in that wound is great, but If I'm not bouncing it off cart paths or trees, I want to have a Grade A used ball at the end of the round, not a C+ at best.
Price: This can go either way. I like that the ball continues to perform despite the dingy, rashed look but players who do mind that will have to put a new ball in play more often than they would another premium performance ball. That being said, is the $13 savings a wash because of the frequency of replacement?? I don't know. I'll continue to play the ball until it seriously falls apart or I notice a decrease in playability.
Bottom line: It's a great ball for the price performance wise. It could be a FANTASTIC ball for the price if they can sort out that cleanliness/ visible durability issue. I'm glad I made the purchase and will be playing these balls until I lose them. A dozen will usually last me a good 1/2 season counting cart paths and whatnot. I wish I would have hit one to see how it took it but damnit I'm not good enough to hit that kind of target!
If anybody wonders, I shot 76. Made the turn in Even and pulled a BUNCH of putts on the back. Grr.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)