Practice is not something we golfers seem to like much.  Of course, most of us would rather be out on the course than at the driving range or practice green.  That’s only natural.  But we put in the time anyway, so that we can play better golf.  Unfortunately, we don’t tend to have the best practice habits.

We often approach it like a chore, instead of looking at it like critical preparation for what we really love to do.  You can see it clearly at the driving range.  Watch as people aimlessly beat balls down range with no target, no desired shot, and no purpose.

We tend to fall into the same trap around the practice green. Watching the U.S. Open last week, there was one shot that set all this off in my mind.

I want to say it was Sunday.  Maybe, maybe not.  Ricky Barnes hit an approach shot and missed the green to the right.  He wasn’t on the collar.  He was in that nasty, horrible, U.S. Open rough that we hope never to see on our own courses. The lie was just awful.

As he was trying to decide on a shot, Johnny Miller remarked that the way to play it was either to play it like a bunker shot or to pick the club up and just sort of drop it on the back of the ball with little or no follow through.  Sure enough, that’s what Barnes’ practice swings were showing.  He executed the shot and had a nice result, given the absolutely awful lie.

The next day, I was at my practice green and noticed that the rough was almost at U.S. Open difficulty, mainly because the crew couldn’t mow it for a while with all the rain we’ve had this month.  Naturally, me being me, I buried some balls in the nasty stuff and started executing the same shot Barnes did.  I tried it with all four of my wedges to different length pins.

I was impressed with how well I did once I knew the secret, but it got me thinking that I might lack the imagination to have tried that on my own.

Even on the practice green, we tend to fall into driving range “rake and beat” mode.  We just throw down a few balls and chip or putt them toward one of the pins with no real purpose.  We chip them off the collar where we have nice lies.  I see some people chipping out of the rough, but not to challenge themselves.  It’s just that they don’t like chipping off of tight lies because they tend to skull or chunk the ball. Hitting out of the rough gives them a bigger margin for error.

The fact is, we practice around the greens to save ourselves strokes.  When we miss approaches, it’s time to shine but we’re not faced with the same vanilla chips and pitches that we practice around the practice green.  The ball sits way down in thick rough or depressions. It might sit way up on fluffy rough. The lies might be bare. We might be faced with a downhill shot two paces off the green hitting to a pin that’s only two paces on. The pin might elevated several feet on a shelf.

I might be shorting myself when I say I might lack the imagination to try the Barnes shot.  After all, I do tend to practice from wacky lies and difficult situtions a lot.  But what is imagination, anyway, when we’re talking about golf?  Is it being able to think up crazy shots?  Or is it knowing the tools in your bag so well that you know which crazy shots are possible?  Is it knowing your tools so well that you know exactly how each will react in a given lie?

I believe imagination in golf is mostly those things.  When we think of imagination, we usually think of Seve Ballesteros.  I’m sure you might have heard how he would impress people by hitting out of greenside bunkers with a 3-iron. Was it is great imagination that let him try a shot like that?  Or did he know his tools so well that it was obvious to him that he could pull it off?

I think we can all do ourselves a favor by forgetting the dull, repetitive chips and pitches once in a while and try out the shots we never thought to try.  Practice the things we’ve seen on the course that cost us strokes in the past.  Practice in situations that we’re never going to see, just to see if our clubs are capable.

Things on the golf course rarely ever work out like we practice them on the driving range or around the practice green, when we spend our time hitting from perfectly flat tees with perfect lies, or we chip and pitch from nice spots.

If we put ourselves in those bad situations in practice, we will be able to handle them better when it counts.  That’s how we develop our creativity.  Strive to never face a shot on the course that you haven’t practiced. Figure out what your tools are capable of in your hands and your creativity will flourish.

I love a challenge.  There’s nothing better than laying down the gauntlet and doing battle.  For this reason, I was intrigued to learn about the 8>9 challenge.

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.

I don’t often cover pro golf, but sometimes I just can’t resist, especially because I love the majors so much.  Today I was fortunate to have an opportunity to sit down and have a telephone chat with Alan Shipnuck, Sports Illustrated senior writer, about the upcoming 2009 U.S. Open tournament, ready to kick off next week at Bethpage Black on Long Island.

The U.S. Open was last there in 2002, where Tiger Woods won by three strokes over Phil Mickelson and was the only player to finish the tournament under par.

We discussed a variety of topics, including:

• The course
• Tiger
• Phil
• Is there an older player that can make a splash like Rocco did last year?
• Young guns, specifically Rory McIlroy
• A possibly surprising dark horse pick

Click the little player below to listen to the interview.  Or, if you’d like to download it and listen on the player of your choice, you can access the file here.

Thanks to Court for helping me clean up the audio some!

I get a lot of publicity-type information flowing into my inbox and I like to share the ones that you all might find interesting.  Recently, I heard about a contest that AT&T is running.  Here are the particulars:

Between now and June 22nd, golf fans can enter AT&T’s “Favorite Foursome” Sweepstakes through AT&T’s Facebook page or by texting to win.

One lucky winner will receive four VIP tickets to the final two days of the 2009 AT&T National Tournament, four round-trip flights, two hotel rooms, transportation passes, access to the Grey Goose® Lounge, and more.

Ways to Enter

• AT&T Facebook Page (http://www.facebook.com/ATT) – Upon entering for a chance to win on the AT&T Facebook page and inviting three friends to join their “Favorite Foursome,” fans will receive a special AT&T National sweepstakes graphic posted to their Facebook wall. Users can extend the invitation and send personal messages to encourage friends’ participation for a chance to win. (click the “Promotions” tab)
• Text-to-Win – All wireless users across carriers can text TRIP to 21234 to be automatically entered for a chance to win.
• AT&T Fan Zone (http://fanzone.att.net) – In between checking out upcoming golf events and entering to receive special golf text alerts on AT&T Fan Zone, users can click on the designated AT&T National sweepstakes banner, which will re-direct fans to register via the AT&T Facebook sweepstakes page.

Also, be sure to check us our on Twitter for up to the minute news.

From where I’m sitting, it looks like that contest is pretty easy to enter.  And the prize is terrific!  Four people getting a trip to Saturday and Sunday at AT&T national sounds pretty awesome.  If you think you and your foursome would enjoy it, then what are you waiting for?

Club gurus have been screaming for a long time that amateur players don’t play enough loft in their drivers.  If you’ve ever read Tom Wishon’s books, you know what I’m talking about.  If you’ve ever been fitted for clubs by a skilled club fitter, then you know what I’m talking about.  If you’ve ever had a launch analysis done with fancy technology then you know what I’m talking about.

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.