This post is going to come off like an advertisement, but I promise it’s not. I just find the idea compelling.

Let me rewind a bit. Remember about week ago, when I talked about the idea of divergence in rules and equipment for tournament and recreational golfers? I mentioned that the thought process was sparked by a conversation with someone in the golf industry.

Well, that someone was Dave Felker, the director of technology for a company called Polara Golf. I found the story of Polara to be quite interesting. In last week’s post, I discussed the idea that the USGA has a way of squashing technology through equipment regulations. Those of you who go back a ways might have even heard of the Polara ball before. The brand originated in the 1970′s.

Here’s some information from the Polara Golf history page that kind of outlines what I’m talking about.

Two scientists, Daniel Nepela and Fred Holmstrom developed the original Polara golf ball. The Polara’s dimple pattern was unique, having six rows of normal dimples on its equator, but very shallow dimples elsewhere. The asymmetrical dimple pattern was a breakthrough in aerodynamic design that helped the ball self-adjust its spin-axis during the flight and thus enabled the ball to correct slices and hooks in flight. The original Polara patent was filed Oct 2, 1972 and it issued June 25, 1974.

The Polara golf ball was first produced in 1975 by PGA/Victor, with sales starting in 1977. Because the Polara actually corrected hooks and slices it posted strong sales in its first year. However, after extensive testing, the USGA concluded that the Polara golf ball did correct hooks and slices and thus refused to approve the ball for tournament play, ruling that it would “reduce the skill required to play golf.” In 1978, the manufacturers sued the USGA on antitrust grounds.

As litigation wound its ways through the courts the USGA changed the 300 year old Rules of Golf by inserting the Symmetry Rule in 1981, requiring that a ball must essentially perform the same regardless of where on the ball’s surface it is struck or how it is placed on the tee. The new USGA rule banned Polara golf balls from USGA sanctioned tournament play. Then in 1985 the USGA agreed to a settlement of $1.4M and the Polara ball was removed from the market, becoming a part of golf history.

It goes on to say that the rights were acquired recently, and work went into improving the original design.

This is yet another case where the USGA instituted an equipment regulation to stop something which they hadn’t anticipated. In the case of Phil Mickelson in 2010, his Callaway irons conformed to the new groove regulations, but they still felt that the spin produced was too high, so they declared them non-conforming. I’m virtually certain that the loophole will be closed in subsequent revisions of the club regulations.

This goes back to the crux of my point in last week’s post. I’m not saying that a ball that can cure a slice should be allowed in tournament play. But for most of the people that will ever see this, does it matter? You’re out there having fun, so why not pick up a ball that helps you keep it in the fairway?

On to the ball itself. I find the design to be fascinating. I had never heard of the original Polara until Dave Felker contacted me out of the blue. I know that the market contains balls designed to help you hit straight, but I had never heard of the symmetry rule, so I didn’t even know it was possible to do what Polara has done.

You might find it interesting to visit the website and look at some of the videos and the other information that gives a more detailed picture of the technology.

Basically, what the Polara ball is designed to do is correct side-spin imparted on the ball. It does this by varying the dimple pattern across the ball’s equator versus at its poles. The ball must be aligned on the tee a certain way, and in doing so, it will correct itself in flight to take the big banana balls out of play. They claim that up to 75% of hooks and slices are banished. For most of us, that means more shots in the fairways instead of in the rough, and more shots in the rough instead of in the woods.

Check out their test results to see for yourself. In addition, I took some close-up photos of the three-piece version of the ball, so you can see the dimple pattern.

Dave Felker pointed out something that I found fascinating, but that hadn’t really occurred to me on an intellectual level. He told me that every player’s game can be improved by equipment. We are only bounded by the laws of science. However, USGA regulations have to be broken to do it.

We think of today’s golf equipment as pushing the limits of science. But really, it doesn’t. It pushes the limits of the regulations. It could do much, much more for our games if not for the regulations. That doesn’t mean there’s not a lot of ground-breaking science involved. It does mean that there’s a lot of scientists with one arm tied behind their backs.

So why am I telling you about this “novelty” ball?

Because I want you to have as much fun playing golf as you possibly can. I don’t want you to get frustrated or be embarrassed about your scores. The Polara ball does not conform to USGA regulations, meaning it can’t be used in any event that uses USGA rules, and it cannot be used for rounds used to compute a USGA handicap. So that eliminates probably 20% of you. The other 80% can do whatever you want. Personally, I’m in the 20% and probably won’t use a non-conforming ball regularly, but that doesn’t mean I don’t want to tell you about it.

Become a Tester [Update: The last slot is now filled. Thanks to everyone for the responses.]

The question remains: does the Polara golf ball do what it claims? I have no idea. I have some here that I will test and review when winter gives me a window to do it.

However, Dave Felker is so confident in the design that he has offered to invite up to ten Life in the Rough readers to test the Polara balls out.

Here’s how this will work:

1. [Update: The last slot is now filled. Thanks to everyone for the responses.] If you are interested in testing out the balls, contact me with your name, e-mail address, mailing address, and telephone number. I will forward that information on to Dave at Polara Golf.
2. He will provide you with some balls to test, with one caveat: you must provide feedback of your experience to either him, or me, or both. You can leave a comment on this post or you can send comments via e-mail, or we can work out some other mechanism. It is expected that this will be honest feedback, not anything sugarcoated. They don’t want that, and I don’t either. If the balls don’t work, then I want to know about it. I prefer that the feedback is done as a comment here, for obvious reasons, but that’s certainly not mandatory.
3. Anyone can test the balls, but please don’t sign up if you’re not sure you’ll be able to do it. You need to be willing to give the balls a full, honest test, and to provide feedback. How you do that is up to you. You can hit them into a field or you can use them for a round. You can hit them by themselves or hit them alongside your regular balls for comparison. Do whatever you need to do to be able to give honest feedback.

Just a little bit or forewarning if you’re going to be a tester or decide to buy the balls to try for yourself: I was told that because of the way the ball spins and corrects itself, it has a low ball flight, so a high-lofted driver is recommended. If you’re using an 8-10 degree driver, like many do, you’ll see a lower ball flight and more roll. A higher loft, like 12-13 degrees, will maximize the carry of the ball. If you don’t have access to a driver with that kind of loft, it’s OK. I just wanted to put the information out there. [Update: see this comment for a much more detailed explanation of why this is the case.]

Polara Golf is so confident that their balls work exactly as advertised that they’re willing to put them in the hands of actual golfers to get honest feedback.

So there you have it. There’s a ball on the market that can help correct your slice or hook, as long as you don’t need to observe USGA regulations. I’m looking forward to trying them out myself to see how they work, and reporting the results back to you in the form of a review at a later date.

© 2007-2011 Life in the Rough. All Rights Reserved.

An Anti-Slice Golf Ball?

The Rules of Golf are probably the biggest divergence between the best players in the world and the rest of us. They have to play the Rules to the letter or suffer dire consequences. Weekend players, however, take extreme liberties with them.

In many cases, it’s not even out of a desire to cheat. Sometimes, it’s a matter of ignorance. It’s also an issue of the Rules not always being practical on busy public courses. Be honest, how many of you go back to the tee to hit another shot after you’ve discovered that your ball is lost or has ended up out of bounds?

All of the golf leagues I’ve been involved with had local rules that overrode the Rules of Golf in some fashion. For instance, lost balls are played like a lateral hazard with a two-stroke penalty.

I’ve also seen league rules that allow players to improve lies within bunkers. The reasoning behind that? I don’t know for sure, but it probably has something to do with the fact that so many people have trouble with bunker play that it starts to look like a Three Stooges short and they just want to remove as much of the difficulty as possible to keep the matches moving.

Speaking of removing difficulty, the phone conversation I told you about at the top was with someone that works in the equipment industry. A ball maker, specifically.

The USGA (for those of us living in the US and Mexico) also happens to govern golf equipment regulations. I’m sure the vast majority of you remember the big to-do about wedge grooves that took effect at the highest levels at the beginning of 2010.

Wedge groove regulation isn’t the only area of influence the USGA has. Every club or ball manufacturer that wants their product approved has to submit for testing and that product has to meet a series of technical and performance specifications.

Many times, clubs and balls that help players hit longer, straighter, and with more or less spin are technically possible to achieve, but not without violating the regulations set forth by golf’s governing bodies.

Remember the Callaway ERC II driver? It was a driver that promised players longer drives. And it delivered by exceeding the maximum allowed COR (the spring-like effect of the club face). It was banned from competition and under intense pressure, it was removed from the market.

If you want to play in any formal events in the U.S., chances are that USGA rules and regulations will apply. That would probably cover everything from the U.S. Open down to your club championship.

But exactly what percentage of golf played is accounted for in those events? A tiny fraction. The number of golf courses in the United States is somewhere in the neighborhood of 16,000-20,000 (give or take some) depending on who you ask.

It doesn’t take much computation to figure that even with all the important national, regional, and local events, all the club championships, and all the other formal events, they don’t even come close to the number of casual rounds played each year.

Let’s even say for a moment that any round entered for handicap purposes should be a formal round, played by all the appropriate rules and regulations. It should be that way, but whether it really happens is a different matter entirely. We’ll pretend that the handicap rounds are all on the up-and-up for the purposes of discussion.

What percentage of golfers even bother to get an official handicap and to post regular scores to the system? According to the USGA, about 4.5 million golfers are issued official handicaps by clubs.  Compared that to the estimated 26 million golfers in the United States and you’re talking about less than 20% of players. I’ve seen it with friends. The ones that like to play for money kind of know each other’s games and just negotiate strokes on the first tee. Most of the rest just show up and play for fun and never post a score, or those that do certainly don’t conform to every last rule and regulation, which kind of negates the validity of it.

So why do I bring this all up?

It goes back to the conversation I told you about. It got me thinking about why recreational players abide by the same rules and regulations as tour pros, when the objective for them is really just to have fun.

Don’t get me wrong. I have a lot of reverence for the history of the game. I also believe it should be played with integrity and honor. I believe that there is a place for the Rules (even though I think some should be changed). I also believe that there should be regulations on equipment that governs competitions.

At the same time, why should someone that goes out and plays 10 times per year, doesn’t play in any events, and doesn’t maintain a handicap, have to try and spend time working on his swing because the USGA doesn’t allow clubs and balls that will fix his slice to be approved for use?

Shouldn’t he just be able to grab clubs and balls that help him hit straighter and hit the course and have fun? Your answer might be that he can do whatever he likes if he’s not posting scores or playing in official events. No one is stopping him. Right?

But that’s not exactly true. The USGA actively works to preserve and promote the integrity of the game, which is generally a good thing. But it also means that big companies are pressured to not sell non-conforming equipment. Why else would Callaway pull the wildly successful ERC II off the shelves?

Those dreaded groove regulations that hit tour pros this year won’t hit that recreational player I talked about until 2024. The question is, why will they hit him at all? Why shouldn’t manufacturers just have divergent lines of conforming and non-conforming equipment?

It’s probably not feasible to relax equipment standards in the current system because they have to fit the bill at every level of play. From the point of view of those at the highest levels, they’ve already had to “Tiger proof” golf courses. Can you imagine what would happen if PGA Tour players were routinely hitting 400 yard drives, spinning the ball from everywhere, and hitting it straight as an arrow?

That’s a valid concern (though whether it would be positive or a negative is a matter for debate), but so is the concern that the average golfer’s drive length, according to Golf Digest surveys, is barely over 200 yards. And what about the fact that most high handicappers might only hit, at most, a few fairways and greens in regulation during a round, and they realistically probably won’t hit any. This is why having dual standards might be the way to go.

There are statistics out there that show that the number of golfers in the U.S. is shrinking. This is certainly for a variety of reasons. How many, though, stop playing, or don’t play as much, because they’re just not having fun? Maybe they can’t hit it far enough. Or maybe they have trouble hitting fairways. Or maybe they have trouble getting the ball to stop on the greens. Or maybe they even have trouble keeping their shots from slicing out of play.

Would it really be a bad thing if the weekend player could just get access to equipment to maximize his potential to have fun playing the game? Would it also be a bad thing for there to be a second set of very simplified Rules, meant strictly for recreational players?

As it is, there are only thirty-some rules defined in the Rules of golf. Meanwhile, there are hundreds of pages of decisions on the Rules because the tiny booklet of rules doesn’t really give players enough direction, or it’s phrased in an arcane way that’s difficult to understand. Not only that, as I said earlier, for players on busy public courses, rules are optional, at best.

You might be thinking, “well, these types of players can already do whatever they want, so why should there be another set of rules for them?” And you’d have a good point there.

The point of the USGA is to promote the integrity of the game. These recreational players, and golf leagues, and informal groups of friends that exchange a few bucks after a round, still could benefit from a framework to live within. Even recreational players like to compete with friends or even strangers occasionally, and there’s just no reason to treat those fun competitions like The Masters.

I’m not suggesting that players go out and emulate Tin Cup and play rounds with baseball bats and garden tools. I’m certainly not suggesting that the game itself should be fundamentally transformed. At any level, you’d still go out, hit a ball with a crooked stick until you get it into a hole, and then count up the number of strokes it took.

But why shouldn’t people playing strictly for fun have easy access to equipment that might violate USGA tournament regulations but that helps them play better golf? And why shouldn’t they have a simplified set of rules that helps them figure out how to get from A to B without hundreds of pages of decisions? Why should they have to deal with the discomfort of returning to the tee to hit another shot while another group stands around waiting impatiently?

To some of you, this is blasphemy. The argument is probably along the lines of, golf is what it is, and if people don’t like it, they shouldn’t play it. To an extent, I’m in that camp. I don’t think we need to transform the game just to lure people in that wouldn’t otherwise play.

At the same time, the phone conversation I told you about really got me thinking about the reality of the situation.

What exactly is accomplished by pressuring companies to discontinue equipment lines that don’t conform with arbitrary standards? And make no mistake, those standards are very much arbitrary. The USGA has decided that a ball cannot travel past 317 yards, given a certain club head speed, so they hit submitted balls with a robot. If they travel too far, they are deemed “non-conforming” and generally are either just sold as novelty balls or die because big companies cave to the pressure of producing only conforming equipment.

Photo: Ian Brown (igb), Flickr

Remember the flap with Phil Mickelson early in 2010? He played a 20-some year old Ping wedge with non-conforming grooves that was allowed by virtue of a legal settlement, in protest of inconsistent rulings on club conformance.

The Callaway irons he was going to play last season were ruled non-conforming because while they technically met the new groove regulations, they still generated spin that was deemed to be too high, despite the fact that regulations don’t call out a specific cap on spin rate. Apparently, they violated the “intent” of the rule, as opposed to violating the rule itself.

I’m going to tell you about a non-conforming ball you might not have heard about when I talk more about the subject in the next several days. I was kind of shocked at the story and I’m interested to hear what you all think.

To boil all this down, I think what I’m saying is this: the USGA should maintain the Rules and regulations of the game in the manner it has done so for decades. Competitions should be formal and should conform to those rules and regulations.

At the same time, the USGA should recognize that the vast majority of players do not play in competition and don’t even maintain handicaps, so these players should be encouraged to use a highly simplified set of rules and regulations, with the aim of maximizing the fun that they have on the golf course.

I’m not advocating that we need a new governing body or that we should stop listening to the USGA and R&A. I’m asking that the USGA, and all of us that hold the sport in high regard, recognize that there are two sides to the coin, the tournament side, and the recreational side. I believe it’s detrimental to have a one-size-fits-all approach to the principles that govern the game, and that the game would be better served with a simplified, relaxed set of rules and regulations for the recreational player. Companies should be encouraged to make equipment that pushes the limits of physics to help recreational players have more fun, while still keeping tight control of equipment used in tournament or handicap situations.

And obviously, it would be up to recreational players to decide whether they wish to play to tournament standards, as they do today. Personally, that’s what I would do, if I was given an option, but I firmly believe that an overwhelming majority of players would eventually choose the more relaxed regulations. Maybe not right away, but eventually.

So what do you think about this? Am I nuts? Am I not seeing the big picture here? Would two divergent games hurt golf overall? Is it even a real concern? Or, would it only just codify what already happens in the real world already?

Let me know what you think. In the meantime, we’ll be talking more about the issue in the next several days.

© 2007-2011 Life in the Rough. All Rights Reserved.

Should Tournament Golf and Recreational Golf Diverge?

As the D-Day for the new rules approached, there was a prevailing opinion that, on Tour, where the regulations took effect well before they will for the rest of us, there would be a rebirth of shot making hearkening back to the old days of tournament golf.

There was speculation that there would be a painful adjustment period, that scores might increase slightly, and that the “bomb and gouge” would fall out of favor, as players struggle to control the ball out of the rough, putting a higher premium on being in the fairway.

I was fascinated to read in the October 2010 edition of The Pelz Files in Golf Magazine (p. 32), that maybe things didn’t quite work out that way.

In his column, Dave Pelz compared some key statistics from 2009, the year before the rules took effect, with the same from 2010 to see what the real effects of the new groove regulations are.

Pelz found that between 2009 and 2010, there was actually slight improvement in things like scrambling, proximity to the hole from 10-20 yards and from 20-30 yards, approaches from the fairway, and even approaches from the rough.

Did the bomb and gouge diminish any? Not exactly. Driving distance was down ever so slightly, but not enough to really be statistically significant (279.5 yards versus 278.6 yards) and driving accuracy was about the same (61.77% versus 61.87%).

It appears that the net effect of all this is, players have gotten slightly better in the short game, despite a seriously diminished capability in their equipment.

So why is this?

Pelz says that the small statistical differences can possibly be explained with other parameters, but he feels safe in saying that “new grooves have made little impact on Tour, because pros practiced with the new wedge grooves more, and did so earlier in the year than in previous seasons. They knew the change was coming (less spin) and prepared for it.”

I agree completely with his assessment. But there’s another part to the story where he and I differ some.

He goes on to say that the regulations will have a greater effect on us, because we hit more wedges into greens than pros do (because we don’t hit as many greens in regulation) and because we’ll never find the time to change the practice habits and learn the techniques required to compensate for the lessened spin. His final prediction is that weekend players will “end up taking it on the nose unless you make wholesale changes to your practice habits.”

The second part of that is where I have to disagree. My belief is, weekend players will adapt relatively quickly to the new groove regulations, just like Tour pros did.

Do I expect weekend players to adapt right away and show Tour-like performance around the greens? Of course not. But, remember that we’ve never done that, and we never will.

Is there really much difference between a shot that goes through the green by 5 yards versus one that only goes 2 yards into the rough? Or how about one that lands 5 yards short versus one that lands 8 yards short? Does it matter much if a weekend player is 20 feet from the pin or 30 feet from the pin after an approach?

The fact is, we don’t play with nearly the same precision as Tour pros so the increased margin of error will end up just being in the statistical noise.

Not exactly a scientific opinion, I know, but call it a strong suspicion.

If that’s not enough, then let’s consider the evolution of equipment over the years. The grooves we grew used to started to change some time in the last couple of decades. That’s why this is more of a rollback than a change. The short of it is, we amateurs have played these grooves before. Maybe not each of us individually, depending on age, but collectively, the amateur ranks have dealt with this beast before.

You’d think with all the technology we enjoy today – not just grooves, but titanium drivers, etc. – we’d be much better players than we were two, three, four decades ago. Not exactly. Golf handicaps have been relatively stable for quite a while. There’s been a slight increase that might correspond with the serious advancements in equipment, but not a lot. Not enough to credit equipment with moving players into higher flights in their club championships, anyway.

So, all this advancement, and collectively we’re playing about the same as we always have.

My theory on that is, weekend players tend to mostly just play. They don’t practice a ton, they don’t really put serious work into improving their games. They go out and play. And given that, they soon learn to make the most out of whichever tools they have in their hands.

Look at it this way:  put a golfer on a slick green with a severely down hill putt. He might just blow it 30 feet past the hole if he doesn’t respect the speed (or if he simply isn’t prepared for it). But I guarantee you, if he drops another ball right then and there, he isn’t very likely to make that mistake again.

Simply put, players adapt. There’s a ceiling to improvement, though. A player with a poor swing will only improve so much. The same is true when players face shots they just don’t know how to play. Or when they don’t know much about course management or about the mental game. But human beings are innately adaptable enough to know that from 50 yards out, their wedges aren’t spinning like they used to, so they need to take a little off.

Most weekend players have no idea how to control the spin on their wedges in the first place. They’re not going to miss what they never had.

Of course, this is all speculation. Maybe 2024 will usher in a new era of higher handicaps as amateurs struggle around the greens like never before. At least, not in the last couple of decades.

What do you think? Are you dreading the new grooves? Or have I talked you off the ledge?

© 2007-2011 Life in the Rough. All Rights Reserved.

The New Groove Regulations Came in with a Whimper

My golf league does a three-club event which, unfortunately, I missed this year. It got me thinking about it some, though, and I thought I’d see which clubs you all would choose. It’s really a great exercise in course management. It forces you to think about which clubs you need most and which clubs you can most easily adapt to fill in the holes.

Many teachers would tell you that a limited set is the best thing for juniors, too. It gets them out of the analytical mindset that overburdens many of us and teaches them just to grab a club and hit a shot, and if they don’t have a club that’s perfect for that shot, then they have to make that shot with what they have. It’s a great way to learn creativity and to become versatile shot-makers.

As of now, there are just under 1,600 responses to the poll and here’s how the results are currently broken down. My choices are shown in bold:

Putter (76%, 1,206 Votes)
7 Iron (40%, 640 Votes)
3 Wood (27%, 421 Votes)
Pitching Wedge (22%, 345 Votes)
Driver (20%, 315 Votes)
5 Iron (17%, 262 Votes)
Sand Wedge (14%, 229 Votes)
8 Iron (13%, 204 Votes)
3 Hybrid (12%, 191 Votes)
6 Iron (12%, 185 Votes)
5 Wood (10%, 162 Votes)
9 Iron (10%, 159 Votes)
4 Hybrid (8%, 131 Votes)
2 Hybrid (5%, 77 Votes)
4 Iron (4%, 71 Votes)
Lob Wedge (3%, 45 Votes)
3 Iron (3%, 44 Votes)
Other Fairway Wood (1%, 21 Votes)
Other Hybrid (1%, 12 Votes)
2 Iron (1%, 9 Votes)
Some other club not listed (0%, 3 Votes)

There are a couple of surprising things in there, I think. For instance, the overwhelming majority of you chose the putter. I see the logic in that, but I disagree with the choice. Let me tell you why I chose the clubs I did and I think you’ll see why. When I sat down to think about my choices, I had four things I considered in my selections:

1. The clubs I select must be clubs I’m very comfortable with.
2. The clubs I select must be versatile
3. Continuing to refine number 2, the clubs I select must be able to produce the widest array of shots that I might face on the course, with more weight placed on those shots which I’m more likely to face.
4. My selections were based on what I expect to face at my home course, and would not necessarily apply to a round at another course.

With those things in mind, let me go over why I selected each club.

3-Wood

Despite the fact that my course is on the shorter side, I believe there is great importance in being able to get in good position off the tee. That means control as well as distance. With the 3-wood, I get plenty of distance, hit it fairly straight, and can control it fairly well if I need to turn the ball.

So why not choose the driver?

Simply because if I need to hit a longer shot off the fairway – like on a par-five, for instance – I can do that with the three wood. I would sacrifice some of the distance of the driver for the control, confidence, and versatility that the 3-wood provides. Many teachers would recommend that even with 14 clubs in the bag so, in this case, it’s a no-brainer.

5-iron

I was kind of torn between the 5-iron and 7-iron. The 7-iron is the club I practice with the most. I’m very comfortable with it. At the same time, I’m pretty comfortable with the 5-iron, too. Ultimately, it came down to the fact that I can hit my 5-iron to 7-iron distance, but not vice versa.

With a middle iron, I can hit the ball as I would normally, but I can also hit it low and run it. I can hit it under tree limbs. I can sling it around corners. I can run it onto greens. I can accomplish a lot of shots with a 5-iron and can do it from as far out as 200 yards.

Sand Wedge

For me, the sand wedge was another no-brainer. This club provides the most versatility out of the three and it can be argued that it provides the most versatility of any club in your regular bag. You can essentially use it for just about any shot from within, say, 100 yards (your distance may vary, but that’s where I start thinking about hitting it).

For starters, it’s obviously useful for hitting out of the sand. With three clubs in your bag, chances are, you’ll end up in some greenside bunkers. To give yourself a chance to get up and down, the sand wedge’s specialty is critical.

Beyond that, it’s fine for approaches from within 100 yards. It’s got plenty of spin so you can control it and stop the ball quickly. You can use it for chips and pitches, especially if you have to carry the ball over water or sand and thus don’t have the option to hit a low, running shot.

One place it falls short is in the case where you do need to hit a low runner. This is another reason I chose the 5-iron. I actually practice hitting 100 yard 5-irons and I can certainly use it for running chip shots when the sand wedge is not appropriate. So basically, between the sand wedge and 5-iron, I have pretty complete coverage within 100 yards.

Why I Didn’t Choose a Putter

Of course, there is putting to think about, isn’t there? In a logical selection, 76% of you said you’d take your putter. No doubt thinking that it’s the most heavily-used club in your bag accounting for half the shots in an ideal par round (i.e. par-72, assuming two putts per hole). Naturally, you don’t want to give away those strokes.

There are two reasons I chose not to take a putter.

First, it violates my second consideration. It completely lacks versatility. Aside from putting, it has no other uses. Sure, you could putt from the fringe or approach. However, I’m covered with my sand wedge  and 5-iron in those cases.

Second, as surprising as it might be, I can putt almost as well with my sand wedge as I can with my putter. Not as well, mind you, but close enough that I’m comfortable going with it. It might cost me a few strokes through the course of the round, but having the highly versatile sand wedge brings so much more to the round that will help offset any lost strokes.

So how do I know I can putt with my sand wedge? A couple of years back, I got to the first green one evening and realized I left my putter in my dining room where I had been practicing the night before.

My first choice for a replacement was my 2-iron, given that it was a heavy iron and that it had the least loft. But I had trouble controlling it because of its length and balance. I tried my 5-iron and 7-iron and while they were better, they still lacked.

So, I decided to try my sand wedge. I found that if I square up the leading edge and hover the club head off the ground and aim to hit the ball right near its equator with the leading edge, I can put a pretty good roll on the ball. Because it’s so short and has a heavy head with a low center of gravity, it was a good replacement for the rest of the round. I made some decent putts and only missed a couple that I felt were directly related to not having a putter.

With all this in mind, when I sat down to decide which three clubs to use, the choice of sand wedge over putter was a given, because of the multitude of shots I can hit with a sand wedge (including putts) versus the limited utility of the putter.

Some Other Surprises

I’m a little surprised that the driver ranked so highly in the results. I understand the need for distance off the tee to take the pressure off of having so few clubs. But the driver, like the putter, has a limited capacity for shot-making. On top of that, many people struggle with the driver in the first place. In a round like this, being in the fairway is paramount. These are some of the reasons I chose the 3-wood instead.

Another interesting surprise is that the pitching wedge ranked above the sand wedge. The pitching wedge does have some advantages, such as being effective from a bit further out. It’s versatile around the greens, giving the ability to run the ball a little more. On the flip-side, though, while it can be played from the sand with a little practice, the sand wedge is obviously much better adapted for that. Not to mention, around the greens, especially if you have to carry over trouble or if you’ve short-sided yourself and need to stop the ball quickly, the sand wedge has a big advantage. To me, the advantages of sand wedge over pitching wedge far outweigh the disadvantages.

Finally, I would have expected to see the 2- and 3-hybrids ranking a little higher. They can give sufficient distance off the tee while giving big advantage over the three wood when hitting out of the rough. While the 3-wood was a no-brainer for me over the driver, it wasn’t such a clear winner over the 2-hybrid. In fact, it was almost a coin flip. I chose the extra distance over the utility of the 2-hybrid, knowing that I’m pretty confident that I can keep my 3-wood out of trouble most of the time.

In some ways, it’s hard to accurately look at the results without considering all three clubs a person chose. For instance, just because a lot of people chose the putter, the other two clubs that were chosen by each individual might be vastly different, for a variety of reasons. However, I think there’s some utility in looking at it this way, given the consensus of people who chose each club.

Either way, I can say I’m glad we get 14 choices in our bags instead of three. I might actually go out for 9 holes this fall with just my three chosen clubs and see what happens. It could be fun.

In the meantime, I’d love to know the rationale you all used in your selections, especially the people that would choose the putter. Did my reasoning sway you at all, or would you still definitely choose the putter? What about those of you that chose the driver? Feel free to let me know which clubs you all picked for your three and why. I think that could spark some fun debate.

© 2007-2011 Life in the Rough. All Rights Reserved.

Playing a Three-Club Round

Not only do I recommend his books, but I enjoy his articles in Golf Magazine each month. In the February 2010 issue, he wrote an article about choosing wedge lofts wisely.  It kind of centered around the new wedge groove rule changes and, as usual, was full of great facts and advice.

One thing kind of caught my attention, though, and I’m not sure I’m fully on board.  Because of the lessened spin resulting from new groove regulations, he points out that players can expect around 50% less spin from the rough and about 20% less spin from the fairway for wedges of comparable lofts.

He goes on to point out that to stop shots on the greens as effectively, players will have to adopt higher and softer trajectories than what we’re used to producing.  And, he says, there are two ways to do that:  either  open the faces to current wedges to produce high flop/cut shots, or get wedges with higher lofts.  He adds that it’s easier to hit shots straight and control the distance with a square club face than it is with an open-faced cut shot.

This is where I’m kind of torn.  Believe me, I don’t doubt that Pelz can show that, scientifically, hitting those little cut lob shots is not as reliable as hitting something with a square club face.  But, I also think there’s something to be said for developing the creativity that comes along with hitting all kinds of shots with each wedge.

As you may know, Dave Pelz is a proponent of a 4×3 system, where the goal is to carry 4 wedges, and to groove 3 distinct short game swings with each, thereby giving you twelve absolutely grooved, reliable, distances within wedge range.  I talked a little more about Pelz’s 4×3 system and why it works when I reviewed his Short Game Bible, which you can check out for more background.

When it comes to finesse wedge shots, I can certainly agree with using that system.  I’ll be the first to say that if your 9 o’clock sand wedge swing produces a shot of 50 yards, then trying to open the face of your pitching wedge to hit that distance with the same swing isn’t a great plan.

But let’s talk about shots from within your shortest 4×3 distance.  We’ll say for the sake of argument that we’re talking about shots 25 yards and shorter.  I will agree with Pelz that, all things being equal, hitting a 15-yard pitch with a square face will produce a more consistent shot over numerous attempts than if you have to open the club face of a less lofted wedge some amount to hit a higher, softer shot to produce a shot of the same distance.

Naturally, introducing a second variable (an open club face) adds some degree of inconsistency because the best we can do is make a guess of how much the face is open and it won’t likely be the same each time, whereas we can probably get the club face closer to square each time (even though it usually won’t be perfectly square).

I get all that.

At the same time, I think there is some benefit to being able to take out a single club and produce a nearly infinite number of shots within a certain distance.  And maybe that doesn’t even mean taking those shots to the course.  Maybe on the course, it’s best to just stick with the shots Pelz recommends for maximum consistency.

I believe there is, however, a certain confidence and comfort that comes with being able to take a wedge out of your bag and feel like you can do anything with it, even if your intent is only to produce a vanilla, square-faced, short pitch.

I think I kind of felt that a little last spring as I was putting in my foundational practice green work for the year.  To mix things up, I would spend 20 minutes or so with each of my four wedges.  I would hit all the plain square-face chips that I could, to various targets around the green.  I was working on my basic stance and swing and all that, and getting a feel for how each club reacted for those shots.  How high did the ball fly?  Did the shots check at all?  How far did the ball fly for a given swing length?

I also spent a lot of time with each club hitting shots that I might not normally attempt.  I would find a pin that was only a couple of paces on the green and drop the ball in the fringe and see if I could hit a little lob and stop it close.  I would bury the ball in the rough and try the same shot.  I would drop the ball on the fringe and try to keep the ball lower by de-lofting the club some.  I would address the ball with my hands back some to see if the shot came out higher and more softly.

I believe that spending so much time doing that gave me an extreme comfort with my wedges from just off the greens.  My stats don’t really show me getting up and down a lot last year, but in fairness, I usually wasn’t just off the greens because I was struggling with swing troubles for a while and as the summer wore on, I spent less time working around the practice green and more time on the practice tee.

However, early in the year, my confidence from just off the green was at an all time high, and I can’t help but wonder if that was the result of trading a little art for science around the practice green.

Even though we might practice a wide variety of shots around the practice green, normally, that can’t match the infinite combination of possible situations we face on the course.  I might hit 50 balls from three paces off the green to a pin five paces onto the surface, but did I hit any where I was three paces off the green to a pin that was three paces on?  Maybe not.

What I did, though, was practice all sorts of shots with my wedges so that when I encountered a shot on the course that was a little different from what I might have practiced, I was still very confident because I felt like I could vary what I was doing with hand position, club face, swing length, etc. and not feel totally out of sorts wondering what the result would be.

It could be that all I did was find a way to give myself a little false confidence.  Maybe I would have enjoyed the same confidence and even more success by just sticking with grooving a consistent, repeatable swing and not trying to concern myself with hitting all sorts of wacky shots with my wedges.

What do you all think?  Is there a benefit to mixing in a good bit of art with all of the science?  Or do you think that keeping it consistent and repeatable is better in the long run?  I’d love to hear how you all approach that segment of the game.

© 2007-2011 Life in the Rough. All Rights Reserved.

Trading Science for Art Around the Greens

Nike Golf is so confident that the SQ Dymo STR8-FIT driver is longer than the TaylorMade R9, that it asked consumers to hit both and see for themselves.  I was happy to participate when a representative of Nike Golf asked me to take the challenge.  STR8-FIT driver in hand, I went out and procured an R9, and then it was ON.

For those not familiar, these two drivers are the latest in the blossoming trend of adjustable drivers.  Each driver has the ability to remove the shaft, change its position, and create a different face/lie angle combination.

For instance, if you slice, you can set the face closed a little to help you straighten out.  Or, if you’re playing a course that challenges you with a lot of drives that set up left to right, you can set the face to be open a little, to help you meet the challenge a little easier.

The R9 goes the extra length of including three adjustable weights, allowing you to tweak the weight distribution to help you promote right-to-left or left-to-right shots.

I had a chance to take both drivers to the driving range and to the course to see which performed better. Technically, the 8>9 challenge is about length, but I’m not letting Nike Golf off that easy.  I’m considering the total package.

Before I get into my thoughts, let’s have a look at the specs on each.

TaylorMade R9 left, Nike STR8-FIT right

Specifications

For the tests, I have both drivers with stiff shafts and 9.5° of loft.  I elected to test the SQ Dymo instead of the Dymo² which is the square-headed version.  I did this because the R9 has a traditional shape and wanted to compare a traditionally-shaped driver to it.

The STR8-FIT comes with a 45.75″ shaft with a 460cc head.  The adjustable shaft allows for eight different hitting positions:  neutral 2° upright, neutral 2° flat, 1° closed and upright (meaning 1° closed and 1° upright), 2° closed, 1° closed and flat, 1° open and upright, 1° open and flat, and 2° open.

The TaylorMade R9 comes with a slightly smaller 420cc head and a half-inch shorter shaft, coming in at 45.25″. It also has 8 different hitting positions, ranging from 2° open to 2° closed, with some of them varying the lie angle, as well.  In addition, as I mentioned above, it has three weights in the head, with one heavier than the other two, allowing you to place more weight on the heel or toe, to counteract a hook or slice tendency.

The Nuts and Bolts (and Tools and Accessories)

Both drivers come with a tool for removing the head, to make adjustments.

The STR8-FIT comes with a wrench-like tool, that is used to loosen a nut which kind of looks like a ferrule where the shaft meets the head.  When tightening the nut, the wrench gives a beep, a light flash, and a tactile sensation to let you know when the appropriate tightness has been achieved.

The R9 works a little differently.  The head is removed by loosening a screw on the bottom of the head.  The tool supplied by TaylorMade is a T-shaped wrench, similar to a hex key.  It doesn’t beep and light up, but it does provide torque capability, clicking when you reach the correct tightness with the screw.

In both cases, switching the face angle and lie is a simple process.  It only takes about a minute if you know which setting you want and don’t need to refer to the manual first.  The STR8-FIT requires a little less dexterity than the R9 for a quick change (my big hands have an easier time with the Nike wrench than the TalyorMade one), but both clubs are easy to modify.

The STR8-FIT head cover comes with a pouch for the wrench, making it more readily available than the TaylorMade wrench which stays in the bag.  The down side is, if you lose the head cover, you lose the wrench.

Edge: STR8-FIT

Cosmetic Appearance

Even though the R9 is 40cc smaller than the STR8-FIT, it has a slightly taller face.  Standing at address, the STR8-FIT head is stretched from front to back, giving it a much larger look.  Note that in the image below, the size difference is not apparent, because the camera was a little closer to the R9.  It is intended to show the shape.  The image in the top section of the post shows the size difference somewhat better.

Top view - STR8-FIT on the left and R9 on the right

STR9-FIT left, R9 right - Heel scuffs came from third-party testing - see below

The STR8-FIT comes with a yellow shaft that turns to black near the grip.  The R9 shaft is a dark metallic red, with a silvery color near the grip.

I like the color scheme of the R9 a little more, and the smaller head is a little more pleasing to me when standing at address.  Though, the STR8-FIT is certainly not bad itself.

Edge: R9

Getting a Grip

Feel-wise, I’m never much a fan of stock driver grips.  These two are both fine, but I like the feel of the STR8-FIT slightly better.

In addition to the feel, the STR8-FIT grip also provides a few nice touches to help with the adjustability of the club.  First, on the butt-end of the grip is a reference to tell you what setting the club is currently at.  It’s not a necessity because you can turn the club upside-down and look at the shaft to see what the setting is, but it’s a nice touch.  Second, there’s a little yellow arrow on the shaft indicating the neutral position.  If you leave the driver set to neutral, it’s a nice reference to show that you’re gripping the club squarely.

Edge: STR8-FIT, but I’d likely switch to one of my favorite Winn grips without feeling a sense of loss.

Distance

Now, we’re at the core of the 8>9 challenge.  Distance is what it’s all about.  Claims about distance have dominated golf club advertising for a long time now.  I hesitate to think how many drivers have been sold on distance claims alone.

Unfortunately, I fell short in this test.  I hit both drivers on the driving range twice, and in 9-hole rounds, but yesterday, before I could perform a more scientific analysis of distance, I pulled a muscle near my hip and can’t hit a shot right now.  My intent was to go out to the course this evening and hit about ten balls with each and take measurements with my SkyCaddie, but I’m on the ice and rest routine instead.

All I have to go on is my observation at the driving range, where I hit probably 40 balls with each club.  In that setting, my observation is that the STR8-FIT seemed to go  a little further.  I hit some shots that seemed really long.  The R9 is no slouch, though.  I also hit some fairly long shots with it, but they didn’t appear to be as long as the STR8-FIT.

It kind of makes sense with the bigger club head and slightly longer shaft in the STR8-FIT that it would be a little longer, though I wish I had been able to prove that for myself.

Edge:  STR8-FIT, but not scientifically measured.

Feel

In the category of feel, this is going to sound strange, but the R9 feels too good.  Hitting the ball in the center of the face feels great.  Hitting the ball off-center also feels great.  With the STR8-FIT, hitting the ball in the center of the face feels great.  Hitting the ball off-center feels good.

I’ve never hit a driver that felt as good as the R9 on mishits.  That’s a slight negative to me, though.  My reasoning for that is, to me, the feel of a shot is critically important to the learning and adjustment process.  When I mishit a shot, I want to be able to tell from feel where I missed on the face. With the R9, the ball flight told me most of the time, but I had to look at the face to see where the hit was, to confirm what I thought I saw.

With the STR8-FIT, I was able to tell much easier where my mishits were.  Again, they felt good, but not so good that they felt like solid shots.

Edge: STR8-FIT, but if you don’t care about tactile feedback from each shot, then R9, by far.

Sound

Studies have shown that sound and feel are closely related in golf.  Apparently, when golfers are asked to hit shots without being able to hear the sound of impact, their feel is drastically different.  Weird, huh?

Well, with these two, the STR8-FIT definitely has a more pronounced sound at impact.  More of a metallic ping, though it’s definitely much less severe than my Callaway FT-i.  The R9 is somewhat softer and less pronounced.  I wonder if this is why I think the R9 has too much feel?

Edge: STR8-FIT, because I like a pronounced sound.

Performance

I tried both clubs in various positions and I feel that the adjustability in both cases works exactly as advertised.

If you read regularly, you know I’ve been working on my swing a lot, so I’m not in a place where I have a very consistent swing right now.  But, both drivers produced some absolute laser beams for me in the neutral position.  And with the adjustments, I was able to turn the ball a little, as expected by each adjustment.

The only challenge is not making subconscious compensations when you see the face slightly open or closed at address when you’ve adjusted it that way.

As for trajectory, both clubs gave me a fairly high flight.  The STR8-FIT seemed a little more penetrating, with a better trajectory for me, but they were both pretty good.

Edge: STR8-FIT by a little, but the R9 was right there.

Third-Party Testing

I thought it would be interesting and informative to have a third-party help me test these drivers, so I enlisted my brother.  Unfortunately, his swing speed is somewhat slower than mine, so the loft and shaft flex were probably somewhat inappropriate for his swing.

After hitting about 20 balls with each, he declared the R9 as the clear winner.  I wonder if the higher degree of feel made the R9 more pleasant for him, given that the shaft wasn’t right.  He did hit some quality shots with both clubs, though.

Edge:  R9

Conclusion

Both of these drivers are quality offerings from their respective companies.

However, taken as an overall package, the Nike Dymo STR8-FIT is the clear winner to me.  There wasn’t really one category where the STR8-FIT blew away the R9 (except maybe feel, and my criteria may not even suit your tastes, and distance, but I wasn’t able to prove it scientifically), but taken as an overall picture, the STR8-FIT is a better fit for me.

In terms of making adjustments to the lie and face angles, both performed well and never did I feel like I was hitting a club that had the shaft removed seconds before.

The TaylorMade R9 is a very capable club, and even though I wasn’t able to conduct a scientific distance test, I believe Nike’s claims that the STR8-FIT performs longer in customer comparison testing.

I’m not sure how big a deal the adjustable face/lie is be to consumers.  I feel like it probably has the most utility by being set up for a particular course where holes might bend predominantly one way or the other.

Being able to close or open the face is a nice feature, though, for a player with a chronic hook or slice, but in that case, the player will probably adjust the head once and leave it like that.

That said, I now own both clubs (yes, I bought the R9) and have the option of putting either one in my bag or staying with my Callaway FT-i Tour driver.  I’m putting the STR8-FIT in my bag because I believe it’s a better club for me than the other two.  I credit Nike Golf for having the guts to put the STR8-FIT up against the R9.  After all, how embarrassing would it have been for them to issue the challenge and have me say I’m putting the R9 in my bag? Fortunately, I agree with their assessment that the STR8-FIT is superior to the R9 and I’m betting my game on it.

Final Verdict: Nike Dymo STR8-FIT is going in my bag.

© 2007-2011 Life in the Rough. All Rights Reserved.

The 8>9 Challenge: Nike SQ Dymo STR8-FIT vs. TaylorMade R9

Yet people still play low-lofted drivers, at the expense of distance.

Maybe that will change, now that Tiger Woods has switched to a more lofted driver, going from 9.5 to 10.0 degrees.  He charged from behind to win the Memorial last week, hitting over 87% of the fairways for the week, including all 14 on Sunday.

His stellar driving was not completely equipment related, though.  As Michael Breed showed on The Golf Fix this week, his swing mechanics are improved as well, probably because of his repaired left knee and the natural evolution of his work with Hank Haney.

We’ve discussed before how achieving the proper launch angle is critical for distance, and driver loft is one of the important factors in that bit of physics.

Some people feel like a low ball flight that bores through the air is how they get more distance. Unfortunately, this is the opposite of what launch monitor research shows.  Not only do most amateurs (and a lot of pros!) need to increase angle of attack at the ball when hitting a driver to optimize distance, they also need drivers with higher loft to help achieve that optimal launch angle.

According to Tom Wishon’s book, The Search for the Perfect Golf Club,  if you’re not swinging a driver faster than 105-110 mph with a level or slightly ascending angle of attack, then you may need a loft of 11-12 degrees to optimize distance.  Try finding one of those on the racks at your local golf outlet.

The point to all this is, if Tiger Woods is playing a 10-degree loft at his swing speed and angle of attack, then there are an awful lot of us in the world that might want to think twice about playing lower-lofted drivers without having had a proper fitting.

I play a 9.5 degree driver and don’t have a problem getting the ball up in the air.  I’d like to get some measurements done on a launch monitor to see if I might need to consider more loft.  Right now, though, I hit the ball fairly high and long with the driver, so it’s not my biggest concern.

Hopefully, people will begin to realize that if Tiger Woods needs a more lofted driver, then trying to seem “manly” by playing an 8-degree driver is probably not a recipe for success.

© 2007-2011 Life in the Rough. All Rights Reserved.

If Tiger Needs More Loft, You Probably Do Too

Perfect.  At least until it started to unfold anyway.

I’m not an “off the rack” guy when it comes to irons.  I typically play them longer and more upright than standard and I also use mid-size grips.  Because of this, I know that when it’s time to get new irons, I need to order them.  That means they get put together at the factory to my specifications.

That also means that it takes anywhere from two to six weeks to get new irons, depending on the manufacturer.  Since I wanted to have them for the start of the season, when the calendar flipped to March, I knew I needed to get moving if I wanted to get a fitting first.

So, last week, I scheduled a fitting at a great golf shop in King of Prussia, PA, called Golfdom.  Most of you who live in this region will no-doubt have at least heard of it.

I scheduled a fitting for Sunday with Buck in the Callaway Performance Center, which I found out at the time is only one of six in the country.  I arrived on Sunday and we got to business.

I was impressed with all the technology in that room.  I was hitting into a big image of the 18th at Pebble Beach on the wall and when I did, two big monitors at the back of the room were tracking my club and the ball, and showing the ball flight on an electronic version of the same hole.  Every conceivable part of my launch characteristics was being measured.  It was awesome.

Until I started hitting balls, that is.

I felt like that scene in the movie Tin Cup, after he qualifies for the U.S. Open and he’s back at the range in Salome hitting balls one night with his caddy Romeo.  He shanked the first ball and laughed it off.  Then as it happened again and again, he fell into a pit of golfing despair as he realized the problem wasn’t going away on its own.

When I stepped up to the first ball, I made what felt like a decent swing that turned out to be a low duck hook, into the Pacific ocean.  I laughed it off just like Roy McAvoy and raked over another ball.  Same thing.  Again.  And again.  And again.  I was in my own pit of despair.

I was kind of stunned at what all that technology was telling me.  My club head (which was my own 6-iron, by the way) was approaching the ball from a staggering 10+ degrees from the inside and was anywhere from 1-3 degrees shut at impact.  There is simply no way to not duck hook the ball when doing that.

What’s strange is, I asked Buck before we began if we could save a few minutes for me to hit drivers to see what my launch characteristics are, just for the sake of knowing.

That was a completely 180-degree switch.  I was hitting the ball with a club head speed of about 110 mph and was approaching the ball from about one or two degrees from the inside.  On top of that, I was hitting the ball with a slightly ascending blow of about one or two degrees.  A couple of degrees more of an ascending blow at impact and my launch conditions would have been close to optimal.

At least I had that going for me, but it was kind of a slap in the face that I’d butcher my irons but somehow be able to hit the driver well.

Buck and I agreed that we were wasting time with the iron fitting because we weren’t going to get an accurate picture that would allow me to buy clubs suited for my swing, because my swing didn’t make the trip with me.

I got home late in the afternoon and was totally dejected, but my brother talked me into playing golf, so I figured I could at least slap the ball around the course for a while and work on my short game or something.

We went by the range on the way to the first tee to warm up and as I hit a few balls, my brother said, “What’s with the Jim Furyk swing,” after watching me duck hook yet another ball.  I thought he was kidding and asked for more detail.  As he replicated what I was doing, I had to resist laughing because it looked so comically ridiculous and my swing was at stake after all, but I got a bit of a sinking feeling as I realized what was happening.

One of the biggest things I had worked on with my pro last year was keeping from taking the club way too far to the inside to start the swing.  That led to me getting “stuck” and hitting – you guessed it – duck hooks.

I was making great progress last year and had the problem mostly beat.  Regular readers will remember that I injured my knee at the height of my re-tooling process and was mostly done for the season.  I’ve gotten in a handful of rounds in the late fall and winter, but basically had to put my work on hold for the past six months.

As my brother pointed out my wacky swing move, it became apparent that I was correctly moving the club more down the line to start the swing, but it was getting way too upright and then I was re-routing WAY inside to start the downswing.

I was getting stuck with the 6-iron and coming from too far inside and shutting the face down.  I’m guessing he noticed my wacky move and didn’t mention it because he assumed that was just a normal bad swing that he sees dozens of times each week.

I took a few practice swings to try and feel what my pro and I worked on last year, and I actually got that good on-plane feeling on my last few range balls, but there was no way I could take it to the course and as I expected, I suffered out there with my irons.  Most amusing was the fact that I was bombing my drives down the center, duck hooking my second shots, and then because I worked on chipping and putting for an hour or two the day before, I was recovering well to save a number of pars.

My big mistake was trying to get fitted on the tail end of winter.  Normally, it’s not an issue because the swings we have grooved will return quickly.  In my case, though, because I was in the middle of a swing change when I got hurt, I was in an unstable spot.  It’s somewhat natural that my swing could go either way in the few playing sessions I managed to find during the winter.

Buck and I agreed that the best course of action is to give it a month or so and try to get myself into in-season form so that we can get a useful handle on my game.  So, the club fitting is on-hold for now, until probably mid-April.  I’m not going to go back until I’ve had the chance to work with my pro and to get the fix grooved this time.

What a weekend.

© 2007-2011 Life in the Rough. All Rights Reserved.

Adventures in Club Fitting

Wishon tackled the myth about longer drivers producing more distance.  Myth #18 (out of 37!) is: “The longer the length of a club, the farther you’ll hit the ball.“  That’s right, it’s a myth.  Well, to be fair, it’s a partial myth.  It’s true that physics dictate that a longer shaft can allow the club head be swung faster, but Wishon holds that only a small number of players possess the right combination of swing fundamentals and athleticism to do it.  The rest of us suffer with lessened control and diminished contact.

He also pointed out a stunning fact.  While we’re buying 45 and 46 inch drivers off the rack, the average driver length on the PGA Tour from 2005-2007, according to Wishon, was 44.5 inches.  Remember that small number of players able to hit longer drivers effectively?  Well, it seems many Tour pros don’t count themselves among that group.  Why?  Because they can’t control the longer drivers as well.

If a Tour pro can’t control a 46 inch driver effectively, how can I hope to do it?

After reading that, I had to give a smaller driver a shot.  I went out to the driving range prior to playing 9-holes (my first post-knee injury round this fall) and after warning up, I broke out the driver and started hitting drives while choking up well over an inch.

To my amazement, I was hitting much better drives.  They were more on-target and I felt like I hadn’t sacrificed much distance, if any.

I took my experiment out to the course and found that I was driving better than usual.  Keep in mind that I hadn’t played much since August because of my knee trouble.  I had practiced on the range a few times, but that’s it.

My swing felt much more in control and I felt like I could take a rip at the ball and not worry as much about hitting it off the property.  I noticed an immediate boost in confidence, too.  I hit one drive up the left side of a tight hole with out of bounds on the left, straight as a laser beam and out to about 300 yards.

A few weeks later, I started to read the December issue of Golf Magazine and I was surprised to see a feature on Anthony Kim that pointed out that he chokes up about two inches on his driver!  His rationale is that it gives him much greater accuracy and control and only costs a handful of yards.  However, he’s 159th on Tour in driving accuracy, so I’m not sure where he’d be without the added control.  His total driving stat is somewhat better, but not stellar.

(Update: the day after writing this post, I found that Golf Digest also featured AK this month, and also talked about his driver.  In that article, AK indicates that he has a 44.5 inch driver that he plays at about 42 inches after choking up.)

Playing with a shorter driver is something I’m going to continue to do.  In the long run, I’ll probably actually gain some distance because I’ll be able to be put the sweet spot on the ball more often.  But as my game improves, I may sacrifice a few yards, but the added control will be well worth it.

I recommend giving it a try.  It’s hard to find men’s drivers that are shorter than 46 inches so just try choking up an inch or two at the range like Anthony Kim does to see how it feels.  I think you’ll find that you have a little more control and you might even add distance with more consistent contact.  Tom Wishon would probably recommend getting a driver fitted properly instead of simply choking up, which is something you can certainly look at doing, as well.

© 2007-2011 Life in the Rough. All Rights Reserved.

Shortening Your Driver for Added Control

For one, ball flight is going to be shorter because cold air is more dense and creates more drag on the ball. Depending on how cold it is, you might see a decrease in distance of a club or two. Equipment expert Frank Thomas says that for every degree that temperature increases, there is about one foot of added carry. So, playing in 50 degree weather will give almost 7 yards of additional carry over 30-degree playing conditions.

Many players like to keep an extra ball in their pocket to keep it warm to be able to swap their “live” ball out between each hole. But did you know that this may be having little or no effect?

According to an article at Golf.com, a golf ball’s optimum playing temperature is around 80 degrees. That refers to the temperature of the ball itself, not to the weather at the time. At that temperature, golf balls will provide the highest amount of compression off the club face.

In addition to that, consider another cold weather fact that Thomas provides: golf balls take about 6 hours to reach ambient temperature all the way to their core.

What this means is that if you store golf balls in your trunk in the cold weather, rotating one in your pocket each hole is not doing you any good because the core is still going to be cold well after your round is over. Those mis-hits are still going to sting and you won’t be maximizing the playability of the ball.

The best approach is to store your golf balls indoors where the temperature is much more warm. Then, rotating them in your pocket will help delay the ball’s temperature dropping to match the outdoor temperature, assuming the inside of your pocket is reasonably warm.

There’s also always the option of using one of those hand warmer things in your pocket which, of course, is a violation of the Rules of Golf.

——————————

Further Reading:

Frankly Golf Q&A
How Golf Balls React to Cold Weather (Golf.com)

© 2007-2011 Life in the Rough. All Rights Reserved.

Golf Balls and Cold Weather