Expedition Exchange Bulletin Boards  

Go Back   Expedition Exchange Bulletin Boards > General
User Name
Password
FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #76  
Old July 23rd, 2009, 10:40 PM
greghirst greghirst is offline
Greg Hirst
KI6CQL
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,287
I must have missed this thread the first time around.

Somehow the mention of Korean golf reminded me of this:



(And it should be SCOTTISH-Korean not SCOTCH-Korean)
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old July 24th, 2009, 07:24 AM
dchapman dchapman is offline
Daniel Chapman
KJ4BXR
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: VA
Posts: 1,117
Got my bag today. Too bad I don't have anything to put in it.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg bag 003 (Medium).jpg (59.9 KB, 26 views)
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old July 24th, 2009, 07:40 AM
Muskyman
 
Posts: n/a
sweet!

PM me your address and I will shoot you out a matching izzo double shoulder strap for it and you will be all set.

Thom
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old July 24th, 2009, 08:56 AM
johnlee johnlee is offline
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muskyman
6.5* 975D man John you musta been swinging with some crazy club head speed when you were baging that one.

Remember that this 975D was from the era when titanium drivers launched the ball very high. The Callaway Great Big Bertha and Titleist 975D were both known as very high hitters.

My first 975D was a 7.5*, and it hit the ball way too high. So I traded it for a 6.5*, which was perfect for me.

Note that my current driver is 10.5*:


Even with the S300 shaft, this is too much loft for me. I got this driver for $100 if I recall on eBay, so beggars can't be choosers. But I think for me, a steel-shafted 905R with 9.5* or 8.5* would be ideal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muskyman
Other then that my rusty cleveland wedges, dented up blades and simple Kevin Burns putter just look like old junk compared to that pretty set.

I'm all about the old-looking clubs. I really dislike new clubs. But I play so little now that my clubs don't get old and beat up. I'm not about beater clubs covered with dead grass and mud. Rather, I like clubs that look well-used.

My ideal for woods is that the painted portions are pristine and polished, there is no sky mark anywhere on the club, and the sweet spot is worn out:


I wish the light were hitting the face differently there. You can see the paint knocked off in the sweet spot area, but you can't see how the sweet spot is worn out.

My ideal for irons is that they be polished and shiny, but dented all over and the sweet spots worn out. This is not "dented":


Here's my MP-33 6-iron next to a new MP-37:


I have some dents but not nearly enough. But I'm not going to beat up my clubs on purpose just to get more dents. But I'm all about the dented forged irons.

I think all wedges should be rusty:


I'm a little bummed Mizuno doesn't offer the MP-T wedges in raw finish. I replaced my Trusty Rustys with the Mizuno MP-Ts, but I still have these Trusty Rustys in my spare bag. I tossed my old Cleveland raw wedges, but I just couldn't bear to toss my Trusty Rustys because I love them so much. These things are as hard as rocks, but I love the shape.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old July 24th, 2009, 09:13 AM
johnlee johnlee is offline
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by dchapman
John, What wedges are in the bag? Looks like:
60-05
58-10
53-08
and what's that other one? Not the PW, but there is one more I can't see.

Good guess. That's exactly what I have. But my 60-05 is bent to 63 if I recall, which increases the bounce, so my lob wedge is 63-08. My memory could be off, but that's my recollection. That's one reason why my lob wedge looks a little weird here:


That hosel is really straight. I mean REALLY straight. Mizuno hosels aren't this straight and there is usually a very slight amount of offset. Adding another 3* of loft made this hosel perfectly straight.

I carry only three wedges, because I carry a 3-iron. My 4-iron and 3-iron are de-lofted slightly. You can tell that I stretched out my set, with the longer irons de-lofted and the shortest irons lofted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dchapman
Think there is a lot of difference in hitting the 60-05 and the 60-08?

It depends. Some people are diggers with the irons. I'm more a sweeper. So generally I prefer the less bounce. I also prefer more bounce on a sand wedge and less bounce on a lob wedge. That way you have more tools at your disposable for greenside shots. You can vary the loft as well as the bounce.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dchapman
I was looking at the 905T. But I did a lot of reading today and the general consensus is that the 905R is a bit more forgiving due to its larger size. Folks claim the 905R gives a higher launch, too.

I prefer the 905R. When Titleist shrank the 905R to create the 905T, something was lost. That beautiful pear shape isn't there on the 905T. The 905T is far from ugly. It's just not as beautiful as the 905R.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dchapman
I know I'm reading way too much into this shit and I should just go out and hit some fucking balls.......

Yes, you're engaging in what Jeff Cooper called "preoccupation with inconsequential increments". It won't matter what clubs you get. Golf is 99.9999% skill. I'm very particular about my golf clubs. They have to look and feel a certain way. I think I'm about as particular as anyone. But on the other hand, I also know that my clubs won't affect my score. I just like nice clubs to own and play with. I don't think I'm going to improve my game with my clubs. That would be a joke.
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old July 24th, 2009, 10:11 AM
Muskyman
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
Golf is 99.9999% skill. I'm very particular about my golf clubs. They have to look and feel a certain way. I think I'm about as particular as anyone. But on the other hand, I also know that my clubs won't affect my score. I just like nice clubs to own and play with. I don't think I'm going to improve my game with my clubs. That would be a joke.

Thats a really great statement.

When I first started playing I chased the game with equipment buying into the BS. Then I bought the book Dave Pelz short game bible and took 20 strokes off my game in about 2 months.

I believe most people that play the game have no plan inside a full sand wedge and that puts them in a mind set of trying to break 100 instead of trying to break 80.

Almost everybody you play with will have a 150 club, but what will you hit from 83 to a back pin position from a tight fairway will really decide your score.

I carry 4 wedges and no 3 iron. Inside of 135 yrds I have 12 known distances and 3 real flight paths to choose from. So for the 83 yrd back pin I can hit a 9 o'clock swing gap wedge and fly it all the way there or a 7:30 swing pitching wedge and land it and release it to the hole. If the wind were in my face I could choke down on the gap wedge and hit a full swing and land it just past the hole with alot of spin.

Its all about having a plan
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old July 24th, 2009, 01:39 PM
johnlee johnlee is offline
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,068
Mizuno has a new video out on the sound of its forged irons:


Gimmicky? Perhaps.

And yet there is no doubt that there is a difference in sound between a forged club and a cast club. I can hear the difference, and I'm far from being an acoustician. I can hear the difference both at impact and when a golfer walks around and his iron heads clang against one another. Cast irons have a very different sound when the heads clang against one another.

Dave Pelz believes that one's perception of feel is based more on sound than on actual feel. He may be right.

This, however, remains my favorite Mizuno video:


Mizuno irons are like buttah. This is why.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old July 24th, 2009, 03:24 PM
hanchung hanchung is offline
wsixhan
W6HAN
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Pasadena, CA
Posts: 1,182
it's that time of the year... bring out the clubs and let the fever begin...

we shall play. tee time anyone?
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old July 24th, 2009, 03:46 PM
hanchung hanchung is offline
wsixhan
W6HAN
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Pasadena, CA
Posts: 1,182
damn... it's been roughly 2 years since this discussion started. i've made every effort to play once a week the past 2 years with maybe missing a 2-3 months?

Here's what changed for me since.

MP-37's stayed and will stay for a long while so much so that I even have a back up set.
from vokey wedges to Mizuno MPT
from Scotty Newport Teryllium putter to Seemore mFGP
from Titleist 905R to 909D2
from Titleist 906F4 to 909F3
same ball... Titleist ProV1
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old July 24th, 2009, 04:05 PM
johnlee johnlee is offline
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,068
Gotta be Titleist. Always Titleist. I'm as loyal to Titleist as I am to Land Rover trucks or Heckler & Koch guns. Titleist balls are special.

Some Titleist ads on YouTube:




I'm kinda getting pumped up too. This golf talk has got me hot.

Should we play next week or go shooting instead? I'm up for either.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old July 24th, 2009, 04:07 PM
hanchung hanchung is offline
wsixhan
W6HAN
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Pasadena, CA
Posts: 1,182
why compromise... we should do both.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old July 24th, 2009, 04:30 PM
johnlee johnlee is offline
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,068
Shit, Negro, let's do it. Bring your A game.

Anyone else want to join us for some G? Sinuhe? You think you got what it takes to play with us?
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old July 24th, 2009, 04:52 PM
johnlee johnlee is offline
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,068
I liked these "in the bag" clips.

Luke Donald:


Note the Rolex. Luke Donald is on the Rolex payroll. Lucky him. Rolex. Polo Golf. Mizuno. This guy's stylin.

Paul Casey:


I hate Paul Casey's clubs because they're Nike and they look shitty. But I like his set-up with his progression from cavity long irons to blade short irons and wedges. If Paul Casey played for a legit golf company, I think his set would be very sweet. Like Luke Donald, Casey likes some offset in his wedges.

Phil Mickelson:


I like how Phil refers to his irons as "Callaway prototypes". That's hilarious. That's his diplomatic way of his saying his clubs were hand-built. Callaway sells nothing like these irons.

Zach Johnson:


Love his Seemore.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old July 24th, 2009, 07:18 PM
hochung hochung is offline
Ho Chung
W6HC
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
Posts: 2,006
I'll try to get some Los Verdes tee time after I come back from CO.
____________________
Ho Chung

Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old July 26th, 2009, 06:27 PM
tonydesanto tonydesanto is offline
Tony DeSanto
Gen
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Greater Denver Area
Posts: 252
Good luck gentlemen on the next round. I'm glad to see you got the fever again.

I'm curious what the big deal is with the Ping bags? I've always been partial to the Sun Mountain carry bags. I believe they were the first company to create an ultralight carry bag with features borrowed from the backpack industry. I see they are still around, and their bags still look rather inovative.

I also think they were one of the first to offer dual carry straps, like a backpack, and offer a built-in stand so your clubs are more accessible and the bag isn't getting all muddy if the course is wet.

John, I'm with you: golf was meant to be walked. I've always played better when I've walked. I'm not sure why; I have always thought it must have something to do with developing a tempo and that it provided just that little bit of time between shots to develop your next plan.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old July 27th, 2009, 08:01 AM
johnlee johnlee is offline
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,068
I just can't get into the Sun Mountain bags. They look like hacker bags. I'm sure they work just fine, but they don't have the player look.

The only Sun Mountain product I dig is the push cart:


I wouldn't be caught dead with one of these push carts, but I think they're sweet. My opinion is that if you can't carry your bag for 18 holes (and reality is most people can't), then you should be pushing your bag on one of these push carts. My father has one of these carts and I dig it.

My only beef with these Sun Mountain push carts is that they have too many features on them. They have bottle holders and ball holders and tee holders and clothing holders and cargo nets and so on. They make the cart feel gimmicky to me. I'd like to see a stripped-down version of one of these carts.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old July 27th, 2009, 02:50 PM
matttaylor matttaylor is offline
Matt Taylor
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muskyman
When I first started playing I chased the game with equipment buying into the BS. Then I bought the book Dave Pelz short game bible and took 20 strokes off my game in about 2 months.


I think Dave Pelz is somewhat dangerous.

The fact that he gets people thinking about their short games is great; most golfers can benefit from paying further attention to this aspect, regardless of the method or scheme. If you're a 15 handicapper, any system that gets you to focus on and dial in your short game is better than what you've been doing.

I know good players that use Pelz's methods, and they make it work for them. I have philosophical differences with Pelz though.

I think the short game is more art than science. This is not to say that you can't be helped by learning technical stuff. You certainly can. But trying to dial in an exact wedge for a certain trajectory from a certain lie from a certain distance puts the player in an overly technical mindset while on the course.

I understand the allure of it; golf is a game of vagaries and inconsistency. The player wants to find some reliable system amidst the haze that he can rely on. Input the data, execute, get a very specific result.

I've never found it to work, precisely because of the nature of the game. It's art, not science. You can't mathematically brain fuck feel. You get feel by practicing, by learning the connection between what your eyes see and what your hands feel. On a side note, this is why walking is better than riding -- your body is more in tune with distances that you walk than it is with distance you ride over.

Anyway, not to get to long winded or preachy, the Pelz stuff is good in that it makes you practice your short game and develop a feel. It's bad in that it distorts the balance in your brain of technical vs feel.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old July 27th, 2009, 02:54 PM
alcruz
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
Shit, Negro, let's do it. Bring your A game.
Anyone else want to join us for some G?

I've picked a new set of sticks and have been working on my game. If you've got room for a slightly improved hack it'd be great to play a round with you guys again.

Somehow I found I played my best with you gentlemen.

Al
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old July 27th, 2009, 04:08 PM
johnlee johnlee is offline
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,068
Al, should we meet at Dominguez @ 5:30 p.m. this Wednesday night? I'm up for it if you are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by matttaylor
The fact that he gets people thinking about their short games is great; most golfers can benefit from paying further attention to this aspect, regardless of the method or scheme. If you're a 15 handicapper, any system that gets you to focus on and dial in your short game is better than what you've been doing.

I have to wonder if Pelz's methods actually work better than other methods. As you say, a Pelz student certainly improves his score by using the Pelz methodology. However, I have to wonder now if the same student would improve just as much if he just practiced the short game just as much, but with another methodology such as pure feel.

I used to be a huge Dave Pelz fan, but I'm not any longer. I used to buy into his data collection and scientific approaches and was intrigued by them because they were a new (to me) perspective on golf. But little by little I abandoned the Pelz methodology. It started with the straight putting stroke. I now realize that approach is completely wrong. That put a serious dent in Pelz's credibility for me. Then, little by little, I started wondering about Pelz all together. I still think Pelz gives some valuable insights into the game, but I now see Pelz as more informational than anything else. Observations such as how the vast majority of putts miss low because we under-read putts is what I think Pelz is good for.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old July 27th, 2009, 05:05 PM
Muskyman
 
Posts: n/a
Pelz puts answers based on data where before there was only a question.

Its not like I walk up to the ball and ask myself what would Dave do

What I do is walk up and read how the ball lies, then look at what shots that lie will allow me to choose from. Then I select the shot and hit the shot. What the Pelz system does is allows me more confidence in the distance I will hit the ball and the fact that I am not choosing a shot that has too high a risk for the reward.

I also have taken alot of other things into my game over the years.

--------

take dead aim

putt before you chip before you pitch before you flop

accept that good things and bad things happen in every round

when its your turn to putt the stage is your, go ahead and perform

turn your shoulders away from the target and then start your down swing with your hips

if you cant imagine a shot you will never be able to hit it

-------

all these are great tips that I think about while playing golf or practicing. I have just added the Dave Pelz stuff as a basis of knowledge in the short game.

When its all said and done every single golf shot you make is a product of everthing that brought you to that shot, having a plan and being able to commit to it makes that shot better.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old July 27th, 2009, 05:26 PM
alcruz
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
Al, should we meet at Dominguez @ 5:30 p.m. this Wednesday night? I'm up for it if you are.


Could I interest you in playing at El Dorado @ 6:00pm, they have specials going after 5:30pm ($9). Forgot to mention that I work in Seal Beach now, but I wouldn't be opposed to driving up there.

Al
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old July 27th, 2009, 07:23 PM
johnlee johnlee is offline
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,068
Let's try Eldorado. I haven't played there since college I think.

I can't promise I'll be there by 6:00 p.m., as I'll leave the shop at 5:00 and I don't know what the afternoon traffic will be like. But I'll try to be on time. See you Wednesday.

Bring your A game.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old July 27th, 2009, 09:04 PM
matttaylor matttaylor is offline
Matt Taylor
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muskyman
Pelz puts answers based on data where before there was only a question.

Its not like I walk up to the ball and ask myself what would Dave do

What I do is walk up and read how the ball lies, then look at what shots that lie will allow me to choose from. Then I select the shot and hit the shot. What the Pelz system does is allows me more confidence in the distance I will hit the ball and the fact that I am not choosing a shot that has too high a risk for the reward.


I hear ya. I'm not trying to totally indict Dave Pelz or anything; I just think he gets too caught up in his data. Like I said, there are players on tour that use his wedging technique (I think; there has to be at least one or two), so my criticisms are obviously pretty personal.

For example, in his Putt Like the Pros book, he describes the green as a "lumpy doughnut" and interestingly explores how the hole is like a volcano because proper etiquette mandates that a player doesn't step near the hole. It's all true.

His conclusion is what I have a problem with. He uses a ramp similar to the one that is part of the Stimp Meter that judges green speed. In order to have accurate testing, he takes the player out of it and he rolls balls down this ramp (basically) to judge at which speed a putt has more likelihood of going in the hole. His conclusion is that you should putt every ball so that it would travel 14" past the hole if you miss (maybe it's 17"; I don't remember. It's been a while since I've read it).

At this speed, the small bumps and irregularities of the green as well as the volcano at the hole have the least impact on the ball and the line of the putt. He has all the data to prove it. It makes a lot of sense and is quite convincing. All putts rolled at this speed go in much more frequently than those moving faster or slower.

The problem is that you can't take the player out of it on the golf course. I tried his recommendation for a while, and it was disaster for me. First, it's pretty hard to control your speed that exactly. You miss a little long, and now you're 14" past the hole plus however much you overcooked it.

Of course, the amount of break in a putt is dependent on the speed, so you end up playing less break due to this faster speed. Ultimately, I wasn't making more putts even though I was buying into Pelz's data. I still buy the data, but I'm not a Stimp Meter ramp.

A quote by possibly the greatest putter of all time made me question Pelz's recommended technique. Loren Roberts says that he plays the most possible break he can on every putt. He tries to make the ball die into the hole. His philosophy is that the slower the ball is moving near the cup, the "bigger" the cup becomes. The ball can hit a portion of the cup and sneak into the hole like a mouse. You can clearly watch Mickelson and see that he believes in running the ball past the hole - dude has more lip outs than anybody. He's a great putter, and he makes a bunch of hard comeback putts. So it can work for people, but it didn't for me.

I found that by playing the most amount of break possible, green-reading became much easier. I didn't have as many longish comeback putts, and I three putted significantly less.

Like John intimated, once I found a hole in Pelz's application, the rest of the stuff didn't seem so slam dunk. Useful, but not gospel.

With the wedging, I've never cared for having four different wedges to choose from on the same shot. Pelz complicates things further - there are various shots you can hit with each wedge.

To me, that's just way too much thinking going on, too much analytical crap going on. I have one sand wedge I try to hit every shot from 80 yards and in with. Around the greens, there are basically three different shots I can hit with this club. It's rare that I use a lob wedge. To me, it's so much simpler to get great feel with one club that you can do a bunch of things with.

I guess I didn't come across the way I wanted to in the earlier post; John said it much better than I did. Pelz gets people to practice their short game, and that's obviously the best thing anybody can do to shave off strokes. I just think his system is overly complicated, putting most players in too technical of a mindset when they should be trusting their feel.

I just watched that Luke Donald video. That dude has my favorite swing. It might be second favorite all time behind Payne Stewart. Or third behind Stewart and Hogan. Pure sweetness and simplicity.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old July 27th, 2009, 10:05 PM
johnlee johnlee is offline
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by matttaylor
The problem is that you can't take the player out of it on the golf course.

Exactly.

Pelz is using his true roller when he's collecting data. When he wants a putt to roll 14" past the hole, it does. When he wants the ball to roll 15" past the hole, it does. Like you, I don't doubt the accuracy of Pelz's data. His 14" number (or whatever it is now) is probably correct in terms of probability of sinking the ball into the cup over an imperfect surface like a putting green.

But enter the human factor. I submit that when a player is thinking about rolling the ball exactly 14" past the cup to maximize his chances of draining a putt, his drain percentage will actually decrease rather than increase. I'm quite confident in this, even though I don't doubt Pelz's data with the true roller.

Why is this so? We're not machines. When we think about rolling the ball 14" past the hole when standing over a putt, we are testing our skill at rolling the ball a certain distance rather than testing our ability to put the ball into the cup. So fewer putts will drop. I daresay part of us even wants the ball to miss in this situation because we want to see how far the ball rolled past the cup. This was, after all, the purpose of the putt in the first place, wasn't it? To roll the ball 14" past the cup? Whether or not you realize it, part of you wants the putt to miss and stop exactly 14" past the cup. This is crazy.

That's one of Pelz's severe shortcomings in my opinion. He ignores the human factor. He comes up with theories and tries to prove them without the human factor so that his tests are repeatable and verifiable by any peer review. I can appreciate his desire to eliminate the human-error element to make his tests more meaningful, but if we remove the human element, what's the point of the test in the first place?
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old July 28th, 2009, 06:03 AM
Muskyman
 
Posts: n/a
I want to make every putt

I think you guys are mistaking Dave Pelz in that he dosent really want you to take everything out on the coarse in a conscious way.

The Dave Pelz system is all about leanring to practice and learning what to practice. There are a few simple rules that the data has produced like always leave the pin in the cup if you can and such but beyound that I consider the Pelz stuff all about practice.

I have had a bent grass putting green in the back yard for 10 years and the practice time I have spent on that green has helped me alot. The Pelz stuff has made that time more productive.

I have taken that practice to make my short game unconscious competant in the sence that I have ingrained a set of physical rules based on proven scientific data. But that does not then say that I am mechanical about my golf game. I am actually a total feel player. I feel the grain ,I feel the texture of the grass, the direction and strength of the wind and I feel my shot in my head and body before I ever hit it. I no longer really look at the distance tags on my wedges I just know what they say and can feel the ball flying those distances based on feeling that perfect 7:30 swing.

A intresting point on the putting past the hole point. I have always thought that Dave Pelz ripped that off without credit. The first person to talk about that was the best putter of all time Bobby Locke. Bobby Locke used to have glass inserts he would drop into the hole to allow him to putt over the hole. He also had hand carved rings that he would drop into the hole to make it njust big enough to fit a ball and would putt to the smaller hole to hone his stroke. His last drill he used often was one to perfect dying the ball into the hole, he would putt to a south african coin that was just bigger then a 50 cent piece that he would step into the green and try and stop the ball on top of the coin! As I recall his lifetime putting average was like 1.41 PPG and his best season was like 1.33 as i recall. I would have to say Dave Pelz couldent do that with his true roller Bobby believed that different puts needed to be hit different ways and he used cut strokes to keep a ball up on a slope and create the arc he wanted. those ideas fly in the face of the Pelz data.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Good Korean Movie - Tae Guk Gi Nadir_E General 8 February 19th, 2006 02:38 AM
Good TV This Weekend johnlee General 34 February 7th, 2005 10:01 AM
talk about good eats... david General 1 December 22nd, 2004 07:10 PM
PCQ-Now the good stuff-LOT's of pics traveltoad General 11 July 28th, 2004 09:00 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:47 AM.




Copyright 2001-2012 Expedition Exchange Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.