PedronNiall

Maybe a good feel for those having specific issues in the downswing, but that makes it a case-by-case feel, not something most golfers should be thinking about or attempting. A good grip keeps the club secure and is able to add and release pressure as needed and as seen in the measurements of better players. That pressure and hand action for most is a response to what the body and arms are already doing in a good transition and downswing. If someone has difficulty with that then maybe a feel of pulling down can help, but still better to see if there's an earlier cause for their downswing issues than jumping right to trying to force a better action. Good for those it works for, but we know how little gravity comes into what the club does from transition into impact. His explanation of "when the club starts falling" or "letting it fall" isn't what happens in good swings and is in keeping with the "let the club do the work" feel that isn't real and starts some down the road of getting passive in the downswing, and we have access to video and measurement on the consequences of slow arms. Most of the good or bad in the swing is because of active movements and reaction to the feedback from them, not passive responses to gravity acting on the club in either main phase of the swing. Players need to have engaged control over the club and insight over what they're doing to initiate both takeaway and the downswing effectively, not "wait on the club" and react to it.

He probably expected you to show everyone else the same respect they've shown you. The point of this forum is for everyone to share in these discussions and to have the ability to gain knowledge as well as have conversation in good faith where all are free give relevant insights. You've done nothing to show you're interested in having informed, genuine discourse so why would I or anyone else dm you to engage on things relevant to the topic? If you choose not to read it simply because it's public that's on you.

Kid? Guy might be "Scheffler young" and only in his 30s looking like that, but he's not some 20-something in his first job. Not like he wasn't arrogant himself thinking he could beat Blair and tossing out/going along with the "player issue" quips. Yep, agree the ratings are in keeping with what the book says the ratings should be. Don't expect that to change anytime soon, but the posts discussing using submitted scores as additional input to evaluate how accurate the rating is have merit. Probably as far as the RBs would consider going.

Agreed, mostly annoying. I do feel badly for the average player stepping onto many of them, though, because even if they don't keep a handicap they know these courses are supposed to be "easy" and end up down on themselves for playing mostly bogey golf places that many better players couldn't do much with either because aside from being short they're absurdly penal. Made me curious to look and ratings "must be" updated every decade, or at the five year mark for new courses, and also "must be" after any significant changes. A lot of weighting is given to length, but they do rate the holes individually and have formulas to account for hazards and the like, so it still seems strange certain courses fall where they do IMO, but not like the RoG and associated items are supposed to be fully fair, just consistent. Haven't fully dug into the details but it seems wide fairways can also contribute to a relatively lower difficulty rating even if there's a lot of pitch or undulation to them from a quick glance. Found a recent thread on here that discusses it in detail.

To be fair I noted that's one of the things I liked about her method and that it matches other instructors I've enjoyed insights from because of how they try to simplify relaying the swing motion, but that doesn't negate what Monte said about most golfers coming in with double digit swing thoughts. Common to see, common story related by instructors, and common to run into for anyone who's helped others with the swing. If you think what she does is so different that it would make those myriad swing thoughts disappear if she'd had that same student as Monte I'm gonna press 'X' to doubt. If you like you can find you vids of Sisson and Clement discussing players coming to them and still trying to run through all the swing thoughts in the world when they've told them all they want them to do and think about is a singular action, and if there's a boat for abstracting and distilling the swing down they're steering it right beside Larkin.

Response says he didn't even read that much, hah.

You can share facts and data, you can share your opinion and even argue your opinion against other opinions; what you can't do is try to counter vetted data with your opinions and then expect anyone to take your arguments as valid. If you want to go full agnostic and say "no one knows anything but we might in the future" rather than engaging in discussion in good faith and meeting scrutinized facts with scrutinized facts then you're going to continue to get push back. It's insulting to others to ask them for proof of concepts and concrete examples of something then dismiss them with some new criteria. Most of the things you do when you "discuss" things here are classical logical fallacies whether you realize it or not. It's frustrating to try and have a real interaction with someone who won't agree to basic definitions of words and basic expectations for what constitutes something of merit when sharing facts. Facts: Most golfers have never taken a series of lessons focused on the core elements of the swing, accompanied by the requisite work outside of those lessons to ingrain those elements; as soon as it "feels weird", they're out. You can see the recent "are you a good student" related thread as to why many don't get much out of golf lessons. Most golfers have never had any kind of detailed swing analysis done, and many who do don't put what they're shown into practice. For various reasons many golfers, and many male golfers in particular, think we're capable of reasoning our own way to the perfect swing and believe we're getting to a better place despite our strength or athletic ability only being enough to overcome basic swing flaws on an inconsistent basis, and mostly only on the range with perfect conditions. Most golfers, unlike those who play other sports, didn't start with sound, basic instruction as kids because people have tried to peddle wizardry and magic as the means to a good golf swing instead of simplifying things to core fundamentals as is done in other sports. Part of that also used to be the cost difficulties around even accessing the game, but at this point that's not nearly the blocker it once was. You represent the wizardry sect in perpetuating and holding onto the idea that only Butch Harmon is qualified to instruct, while at the same time believing no one understands the fundamentals of how the swing works, which is some Schrodinger's Golf Swing type of mental gymnastics. Do you understand how wild it is to think one man and the knowledge he's gained in his life outweighs all other avenues of learning and research into the game by all the other people who have studied it and still actively do so, some of those avenues incorporating data from thousands or tens of thousands of swings, on top of studying analysis from capture data that isn't unique to golf but spans the library of biomechanics? We're talking about writing off the insights of people who began with "How does the human body move and what are its limitations?", learned to apply that understanding across multiple sports fields, incorporated them for golf, in some cases even do detailed analysis of the physics of the forces involved, then have that analysis peer-reviewed before they share the findings. That's how we got to G.E.A.R.S., Kwon3D, and all the other 3D capture systems, as well as all of the quality force tracing systems dedicated to golf we now have available. Your opinion is to the point of saying "In all the world, only Doctor X is qualified to teach people about healthy diets, but that whole medical school thing and those silly biology and anatomy ideas it's based on are a bit suspect". I think that's about all I have the energy for. If you want to keep viewing the world and golf as you do that's your choice, but the data is there if you want to look at it and learn to weigh its validity in a realistic, informed manner.

Weird that she says she doesn't really like links golf, which is the blueprint for getting creative on the course rather than being able to overpower it with distance.

Probably just what she feels works for her. She's getting her degree in communications so I can't see it mattering heavily either way in terms of managing opportunities outside of golf now or later. Might feel it would be harder to find the motivation to go back vs using the drive she already has going at the moment. Agree it's got to be a lot given how heavy the assignment load has to be, but I doubt she falls off by taking a little more time to finish up school. Likely family expectations to manage as well.

Haven't found that to be the case. Modern blades like the Wilson Staff Model Blade, the new Mizuno S-1, the Sub 70 and Hogan models I dropped above, some offerings from Miura, and a number of others offer optimizations on weighting and cutaways that give the traditional benefit of workability found in blades with levels of forgiveness equal to many CBs, plus different camber and bounce options to fit a range of swings. In the video above, the Wilson blades scored the same as their CB counterparts across the board. If someone's still selling a huge slab of metal with no optimization then sure, it's nothing novel, but most OEMs are incorporating better design into their new MBs, otherwise there'd be no incentive to buy them over a mint set of something much older.

Depending on the specific irons, compared to your current set you may see More distance due to stronger lofts in some sets, though you can always have them weakened a few degrees Slightly different flight due to higher or lower CG and lofts Higher/lower spin than your current set in certain heads More forgiveness due to overall head configuration and weighting Different feel due to changes in Mizuno's forging process, and more so if you go to a hollow body like the 245 Different turf interaction if you go from the Mizuno options to Srixon's v-sole; highly recommend you go to a store that offers at least a single playability trade-in guarantee if you can't hit on grass before making your purchase. Not everyone gets along with the v-sole. A good fitter should be giving you a baseline with your current set so you can easily compare how they behave on that specific monitor and launching surface vs whatever you're trying. Shouldn't take tons of hits with each iron to know whether it's in contention or not. Also may want to try either Wilson or Mizuno's fitting tools to get some quick shaft recommendations if you feel there's any room for improvement there before diving in on the heads.

Got them just in time. Executive order came down, so going to have to do full paperwork on both ends and pay duties on imports regardless of value from now on in order to clear customs. Paperwork alone and the extra time to clear customs is going to be a pain. The paperwork may mean manual processing through customs. Not sure if it will also require extra steps for the courier to get the package once it gets stateside. Items I've had to pay duties to ship before also required someone to sign for them in person, but don't know how that varies by country of origin and destination.

Already said, but Bubba is an outlier. It's not like the tech turns people into robots. Scott, Kitayama, Scottie, Rory, Xander, Nelly, Ko, Woad, Rory, and on and on and on all still look differently enough throughout to tell them apart, but they all do the major things within a window of efficiency. Most of them and almost everyone coming up through the ranks now is making sure they're doing the same as easily as they can and maintaining it by using what's available. You can still have all the magic of your own swing, 3D, force plates, and monitors don't take that away. Do you have to use tech? No, but used correctly it can catch in a few minutes what might take multiple sessions over days or weeks to spot otherwise and get you started on the right thing in far fewer swings. Someone like Smylie Kaufman might not have gone from winning to broadcasting if he'd had access to better data to know what he was doing before vs after. It also gives portable data that means even if you don't click with an instructor or you simply relocate you have something objective to take to someone else from day one. Hoge being an outlier by not improving because he didn't put what the data showed to use doesn't offset the majority who have utilized it seeing faster improvement. Still guys like Porzak who deal in methods and drills alone with very little other than video as checks, so that's out there if it appeals to you, but it won't change the value of current and emerging tech outweighing the cost. Time is far more finite and valuable than money and you're using the former far more effectively if you take advantage of the data tech offers to skip the guessing games. It's unlikely that there's no gain to be had or that studies supporting the value of 3D capture and pressure traces are bad science when football, skiing, running, marital arts, skateboarding, snowboarding, surfing, baseball, basketball and many other sports besides golf are already incorporating them.

Shafts are about lining up profiles with tempo, transition, and tendencies more than peak CHS. Some players also just hate feeling kick or loading while others need to feel one, the other, or both, and some are unbothered either way. Could be any combination of things that make that shaft work well for him.