[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

That too is all well said - and one thing that I haven't really considered is the effect of Father Time.  You have an exceedingly good attitude about this - one that all should emulate.  If we can treat this loss of strength and dexterity as a challenge rather than a curse, than the game will indeed never cease being fun, the challenges and standards just being different rather than lesser. That just has to be tougher to say than to do, though.

One bone I will pick:  while I would love to be known as a ferocious competitor who plays to his handicap when the pressure is on, well the fact is that happens so rarely NOW, I can't see it changing.  I'm content with the fact that when the pressure is on, I usually gag.  Well, content isn't the right word - grudgingly realistic is.

Then that would be reflected in your handicap.[/color]

Thus what I'd like to be known as is a great guy to play with - a decent competitor, but a better sportsman and wit.  I work hard at that.  The first parts are easy, the "whit" part requires more practice than becoming a better golfer.

For some strange reason, you feel that they're mutually exclusive, when they're not.  You can be a great guy to play with, a sportsman, a wit and a great competitor.  There's nothing other than oneself that prevents that.

Being a great competitor has nothing to do with your handicap.  I knew a two fellows, one was always a great player who remained a great competitor all his life, when his handicap was plus 3 to 18.  The other, whose lowest handicap was 8, but, who hovered around 14 most of his life, were friends and partners, and the most tenacious competitors you ever saw when they were in their 40's, 50's, 60's, and 70's.  They would take on anybody and usually destroy them.  And, they were both a joy to play with in every way.[/color]

We all have different takes and goals - don't assume that competition is what it's all about for all of us.  

Are you telling me that you WANTED to lose to Ran.
That you wanted to lose to a man playing hickories circa 1918 to 1929.
That you wanted to be humiliated and reminded for the next 10 years, in front of all of your GCA.com cronies and on GCA.com.
That you really didn't care if he beat you ?

And that in your match with your partner, Notre Dame Sweeney, against Gene Greco and myself that you didn't want to win ?
That you didn't care if you beat us or we beat you ?

I recall you focusing pretty well on the match, irrespective of the fun we were having while playing it.[/color]

I don't expect you to fully understand this, though - as the great competitor that you are, it has to be very strange.


When I couldn't hit a drive 200 yards, and a good 4-iron went 150, I still wanted to beat anyone who I came in contact with, and it had nothing to do with my scoring abilities, or lack of them.  It's the fun of good competition.

And, at the same time, I wanted to have a good time with the fellows I was playing with and against.

You wouldn't know this, because you've probably never experienced it, but, nothing is more satisfying then beating Ran Morrissett.

And, I'm sure he feels the same about beating me.

And, when we play, we're ferocious competitors, but, we have fun, talk about everything under the sun and genuinely enjoy each other's company, before, during and after the round.

I can play for nothing, or I can play for stakes, and depending on the company, I'll have a great time.

You're just upset because you were foolish enough to give a man who was whining for three days, all of those shots.
Your fate was sealed before you teed off.

You should feel better knowing that you're not alone.
Last season he suckered golfers all across the nation into giving him an excessive number of shots.  Only a few, who are aware of his whining and wiley ways avoided that trap.[/color]  

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

That was FANTASTIC and I am absolutely cracking up.  Great stuff.

But as for the substance, let me get a few things straight:

1.  I never said being a ferocious competitor and being a great guy and asset to any foursome were mutually exclusive.  In fact I'm going to give  you the greatest compliment I ever have in this forum to anyone and say that YOU are living proof that a man can be both.

2.  My point was only that some of us are content with the fact that competitive success is beyond us, and thus that is not our goal as a golfer.  Oh sure, if I set up a match, I want to win and give my best effort.  But I swear to Our Lady the great Notre Dame of South Bend and all other places that some of the most joyful, most satisfying, most fun golf rounds of my life have been competitive losses.  Why?  Because the competition was great, the friendships were strong, and in the end I was proud of my conquerors and proud that I gave it my best shot as did they, and the best man won.  No, the match against Ran was very very fun but wouldn't fall in this classification because I knew on the first tee that match was over - I just honestly didn't care.  The point is a hard-fought loss with great spirit will always give me more satisfaction than a win that includes pissed-off crap and gamesmanship against pricks.

Perhaps you can understand this, perhaps not.

In any case I have REALLY strayed from the point of your topic here - sorry about that.  I seem to be doing a lot of apologizing lately.
 

[John Kirk]

Patrick,

Thanks for all this.  Story time...

My dad was a great natural athlete, who was really good at pretty much anything he put his mind to.  He rediscovered golf at age 50 and played 3 times a week during his last 25 years.  But he was kind of lazy, and liked to nap in front of the TV a lot.  Never worked out; hardly ever practiced.  He was a remarkably even tempered man and a quiet competitor.

He was also quite frugal, but as he got older, he had a few extra bucks and just liked to go the golf store and buy himself a few new clubs to play with.  He called it "buying a better golf game", and he said it with a smile.

When he lost the ability to hit it high and far, he never complained about it, he just adjusted and enjoyed the game at least as much as before.  When he died, the outpouring of love from the club membership was astounding.  They adored him, and they not only admired how good a golfer and playing partner he had been, but how gracefully he had aged.

He is my role model, and I aspire to complete my life with the same grace he possessed.  I've got lots of work to do.
 
Pat, your loss of strength sounds somewhat temporary; you were able to regain much of your strength, while experiencing and accepting the slow, inevitable deterioration of one's physical prowess.

[Doug Siebert]

Patrick,

Do you find the same JOY playing all different types of courses?  I could see that on a NGLA, but what about your more typical overwatered American courses where the ground game isn't in play.

I've seen my dad go through this diminishing distance over the years, and I've commented before on GCA that when playing with him I see architectural features or dimensions to hazards that I didn't recognize because they don't affect my game.  But I can also see the frustration playing on a soggy course after a rain when there's little or no roll so the ground game doesn't work and he can't work any slopes.

I also see him having more and more trouble with courses with a lot of elevation change.  He just doesn't get enough height on his shots to lift it far enough above the top of the hill to make a reasonable play at the green.  It'll either bang into the hill short and not make the green, or will hit the green at about a 5* angle and rocket over the back.  Even if he's only 120 yards away from a green like that getting down in three is no picnic for him because the elevation changes no longer fair to his game.

He still enjoys the game as much as ever (he's in Acapulco for three weeks with my mom, no doubt playing every other day)  But I think some types of courses have got to be less fun for aging golfers, beyond just the obvious "the back tees are too long for me now" kind of thing.

Maybe the aging of the baby boomers will provide a push towards the F&F maintenance style as they experience what you have recently experienced and decide maybe overwatered lush green courses aren't so hot after all.

[JLahrman]

I have never heard anyone say that they are entitled to more distance!

Sure they do, by their actions.

They don't want to work hard on their game, they want to buy it.  They think they're entitled to it.
 
Why do you think they buy the newest model driver, the one touted to be the latest and greatest way to get more distance, within six months of the purchase of their current driver ?[/color]

So people who upgrade to what they consider to be superior equipment do so out of a sense of entitlement, and because they don't want to work hard?  

Go back and read the last sentence in my quote, the part about purchasing the most modern driver six months after they purchased their previous driver.[/color]

Was this also true of players who abandoned gutta percha and hickory shafts?

I don't think they replaced their inventory every six monts, do you ?[/color]

Your allegations seem to imply that professional golfers don't want to work hard at their game.  

Gp back and reread my posts, and this time, take your time, read it carefully, see, see the quote, comprehend, comprehend the quote.[/color]

After all, they are at the head of the equipment forefront.

YES, but they don't have to purchase their equipment do they ?

Who has to purchase their equipment ?

Think in that context.[/color]

So the difference is that pros don't have to buy their equipment but amateurs do?  A golfer feels a sense of entitlement if he buys a new driver, but it's different if he spends a week at Callaway having clubs made exactly to the specs of his physique and swing?  Is the pure acquisition of new equipment the issue, or is the purchase the key differentiator?  Could you elaborate?[/color]

Also, could you define the age parameters of the lazy, spoiled, "me" generation who you believe may be part of this trend towards longer, stronger equipment?  

I didn't coin the phrase, the "me generation" but, I'd imagine the folks that did can define the exact age parameters for you.[/color]

You used the phrase, therefore I ask you to either define the generation, or cite someone who did.  If you're going to posit that the me generation could be a big driving force behind the distance boom, I think it's fair to ask you to define exactly who constitutes this group.[/color]

I don't see any one age demographic being more likely to upgrade clubs and balls.  
Most avid golfers, regardless of age, try to acquire the equipment that will help their games as much as possible.  


Every six months ?[/color]

If the idea of a golfer feeling 'entitled' to more distance, accuracy, etc. is in part defined by the frequency with which equipment is replaced, please define the boundary between golfers who feel entitled to more distance, and golfers replacing worn out equipment.  Five years?  Ten years?  You say you've had irons for 20 and 30 years.  Is any replacement of clubs an entitlement issue?

Also, let's say you're correct with your six month assertion.  Are older golfers less likely to replace clubs than your undefined me generation?  Having worked at clubs with numerous older members, I know what they've had in their bags.[/color]

Additionally Pat, could you please clarify your definition of "additional, artificial means"?

Think of "additional" in the context that you used it in the above sentence.[/color]

Again, you used the phrase, not me.  Hence I asked you to define the context.[/color]

As to "artificial", man made would suffice.

I'm confused.  All clubs, including the irons you've had for 20 or 30 years, are manmade.[/color]

"means" = to have an intended purpose.

But, rather than take my word for it, consultation with Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary could have provided you with the same answers. [/b][/color]

You ask for the 'context' to be considered, but then say that a dictionary could have provided me with the answers.  Since you made the comments, I've asked you to provide more background on the context.  I could guess, or I could ask you.  Presumably being from the lazy me generation, I've opted for the latter.[/color]

I do think that trying hickories, or at the least persimmons, would be an enjoyable and valuable experience for most any avid player.

Perhaps, but, I've had the same irons for 20+ years and before that had the same irons for 30 years and I've had the same putter for 40 years, so you could say that I resist change.[/color]

Let me rephrase...I think it would be valuable for me.

Anybody know someone who can custom-fit hickory shafts?[/color]

[Andy Hughes]

So the reality is---if distance producing high-tech equipment is out there and legal just about every golfer will use it even if they endorse or strongly endorse a roll-back of distance.

TEP, great post.
But I am not sure even what the debate is at this point.  If the people clamoring for a roll-back of the ball and the limitations on new drivers are themselves using Pro-V1s and a Taylormade R7, then what exactly is the point of a roll-back of technology?
Are there that many people that are not enjoying the game anymore because the new technology has made it too easy?
Are there that many people who are consciously missing out on
the joy of the interaction between golfer and architecture because they hit it too far?
Are there that many 55 year olds carrying their drives 300 yards, and why should that bother me in any way?
Pat, I find your take on the current state of your game and the way you have adapted fascinating.   I wonder if you will change anything about the way you play as you regain strength and distance.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I have never heard anyone say that they are entitled to more distance!

Sure they do, by their actions.

They don't want to work hard on their game, they want to buy it.  They think they're entitled to it.
 
Why do you think they buy the newest model driver, the one touted to be the latest and greatest way to get more distance, within six months of the purchase of their current driver ?[/color]

So people who upgrade to what they consider to be superior equipment do so out of a sense of entitlement, and because they don't want to work hard?  

Go back and read the last sentence in my quote, the part about purchasing the most modern driver six months after they purchased their previous driver.[/color]

Was this also true of players who abandoned gutta percha and hickory shafts?

I don't think they replaced their inventory every six months, do you ?[/color]

Your allegations seem to imply that professional golfers don't want to work hard at their game.  

Gp back and reread my posts, and this time, take your time, read it carefully, see, see the quote, comprehend, comprehend the quote.[/color]

After all, they are at the head of the equipment forefront.

YES, but they don't have to purchase their equipment do they ?

Who has to purchase their equipment ?

Think in that context.[/color]

So the difference is that pros don't have to buy their equipment but amateurs do?  A golfer feels a sense of entitlement if he buys a new driver, but it's different if he spends a week at Callaway having clubs made exactly to the specs of his physique and swing?  Is the pure acquisition of new equipment the issue, or is the purchase the key differentiator?  Could you elaborate?[/color]

How many times are you going to keep missing the phrase "every six months" ?[/color]

Also, could you define the age parameters of the lazy, spoiled, "me" generation who you believe may be part of this trend towards longer, stronger equipment?  

I didn't coin the phrase, the "me generation" but, I'd imagine the folks that did can define the exact age parameters for you.[/color]

You used the phrase, therefore I ask you to either define the generation, or cite someone who did.  If you're going to posit that the me generation could be a big driving force behind the distance boom, I think it's fair to ask you to define exactly who constitutes this group.[/color]


Then assume it's the generation that followed mine[/color]

I don't see any one age demographic being more likely to upgrade clubs and balls.  
Most avid golfers, regardless of age, try to acquire the equipment that will help their games as much as possible.  


Every six months ?[/color]

If the idea of a golfer feeling 'entitled' to more distance, accuracy, etc. is in part defined by the frequency with which equipment is replaced, please define the boundary between golfers who feel entitled to more distance, and golfers replacing worn out equipment. [/color]

If you can't distinquish between the constant acquisition of the latest and greatest equipment and the replacement of worn out equipment you're beyond my help.[/color]


Five years?  Ten years?  You say you've had irons for 20 and 30 years.  Is any replacement of clubs an entitlement issue?
[/color]

See my answer above.[/color]


Also, let's say you're correct with your six month assertion.  Are older golfers less likely to replace clubs than your undefined me generation?  Having worked at clubs with numerous older members, I know what they've had in their bags.[/color]

I'd say that the older generation tends to be more frugal when it comes to spending discretionary funds.[/color]

Additionally Pat, could you please clarify your definition of "additional, artificial means"?

Think of "additional" in the context that you used it in the above sentence.[/color]

Again, you used the phrase, not me.  Hence I asked you to define the context.[/color]

As to "artificial", man made would suffice.
[/color]
I'm confused.  All clubs, including the irons you've had for 20 or 30 years, are manmade.[/color]

"means" = to have an intended purpose.

But, rather than take my word for it, consultation with Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary could have provided you with the same answers. [/color]

You ask for the 'context' to be considered, but then say that a dictionary could have provided me with the answers.  Since you made the comments, I've asked you to provide more background on the context.  I could guess, or I could ask you.  Presumably being from the lazy me generation, I've opted for the latter.[/color]

Since you're being coy and dense, I'll try to provide the context which you haven't been able to gleen from a good number of my posts.

Illness and age conspired to cause me to lose a substantial amount of distance, abruptly, hence, I'd prefer not to add to that problem by using hickory shafts and old golf balls.

If a four iron went 150 yards, I don't need to ratchet it down further to 130 or 120 yards, that will come soon enough by natural means.
[/color]

I do think that trying hickories, or at the least persimmons, would be an enjoyable and valuable experience for most any avid player.

Perhaps, but, I've had the same irons for 20+ years and before that had the same irons for 30 years and I've had the same putter for 40 years, so you could say that I resist change.[/color]

Let me rephrase...I think it would be valuable for me.

Anybody know someone who can custom-fit hickory shafts?[/color]

A few years ago it would have been fun for me as well, but, currently, I'd like to try to regain my former form, or, come as close to it as possible with my old clubs.

Then, I may try hickories.

Ran Morrissett can tell you where to get a good set of them.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy,

View the answer to your question to TEPaul in the context of the nuclear arms race and MAD (mutually assured destruction)
Noone wants to compete on an unequal footing.

With respect to regaining some of my strength
I"ve already run into some problems.

At one point I knew I couldn't overpower the ball or hit it hard so I took the appropriate club and usually hit it in the sweet spot.

As I began to regain some strength, the urge to take less club, but to hit it harder, resulted in too many mishits.

Thus, I realized that any gain in distance wouldn't be good if it was derived through a forced swing, yet I felt that I needed to increase my swing speed, but that I had to do it within the context of a controlled effort. (not easy)

Some days I was successful, other days were disastrous.
And, that's where the Momentus helped me.
I was able to retain a compact backswing and balance while accelerating the club through the ball.

I also tried to practice more.
My usual routine is 10 L-wedges, 10 Sand Wedges, 10 Pitching wedges, 10 8-irons, 10 6-irons, 10 4-irons, 10 long L wedges, 10 short L wedges.   And, when I began to get a little more proficient with my lower irons I added 10 2-irons.

As I said, the biggest challenge was getting good trajectory on my longer clubs.   But, my enjoyment of the game never waivered.  

John Kirk,

It seems that both you and your dad forged a great relationship.  That's nice.

Doug Siebert,

Spring was/is difficult, because it restricted my distance and also prevented me from playing shots that could run to a green or through an opening.

Courses that were overwatered merely required me to take more club, but, they also restricted the running aspect.

Sometimes, I knew I couldn't fly it to the green and hold it, because of my low trajectory, but, I could hit short of the green with less club and run it up.   Wet conditions prevented that, but, wet conditions made it a little easier to fly a low shot to the green.

Courses with high, elevated greens exacerbated the problem.

But, you learn to adapt and to get adept around the greens.
You look for prefered locations to miss, or hit the ball to.

Tom Huckaby,

Being a ferocious competitor isn't dependent upon the result of your match.

What was reinforced on me, is that you only have so much time on this planet, and only a limited amount of time to play golf, so why would you want to punish yourself by spending four hours with unpleasant people ?  That's a complete waste of your time.  It's not a matter of being a snob, it's a matter of jealously guarding a precious commodity, your time, and the time you set aside to enjoy yourself, others, the golf course and the game of golf.

The funny thing is, I kind of like listening to Ran whine.
it has a melodic sound to it.  

The time I spent with you and the others at Sand Hills was more than enjoyable, it was a real treat in every way, except for that pebble on the 17th green.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom Huckaby,

Being a ferocious competitor isn't dependent upon the result of your match.

What was reinforced on me, is that you only have so much time on this planet, and only a limited amount of time to play golf, so why would you want to punish yourself by spending four hours with unpleasant people ?  That's a complete waste of your time.  It's not a matter of being a snob, it's a matter of jealously guarding a precious commodity, your time, and the time you set aside to enjoy yourself, others, the golf course and the game of golf.

The funny thing is, I kind of like listening to Ran whine.
it has a melodic sound to it.  

The time I spent with you and the others at Sand Hills was more than enjoyable, it was a real treat in every way, except for that pebble on the 17th green.

Dammit man, the fact that you are so freakin' wise makes it really tough for me in the future arguments I am certain we will have.  

That is really sage counsel and well, I loved the pebble on the 17th green.  

Here's another corrolary question for you though:  oh, I understand that life is indeed WAY to short to suffer through playing with assholes.  So of course I strive never to BE one, as anyone with any sense would.  BUT here's the rub:  in competitive play - and remember I'm not talking the very high-levels like you, just local stuff beyond my own club - my experience throughout my golf life has been that it's been really close to 50/50, assholes and good guys.  That is, I sure have met a lot of pricks who were fiery competitors.  So what to do in that situation?  My answer was always to focus inwardly, but you know me well enough - it's not tough - to see that that is no fun for me.    In the end, this was a big reason why I gave up truly competitive golf - I was just really tired of dealing with the assholes.  I did have burnout issues as well, but I swear to you this was a big factor.

I'm guessing your experience at the highest levels and elsewhere was different from mine - that is, you certainly must have met your share of assholes, but not to the degree I did.  But can you understand my take?

And if you do, can you also understand why I shy from competition in golf more than I seek it out?

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

My experiences have been different than yours, and perhaps that's why our outlooks may be different

My breakdown is more like 95/5.

The great majority of fellows I've met through golf have been terrific.  That's not to say than anyone can't have a bad day, but, the great majority of the people I've come into contact with through golf have been enjoyable to be with, on and off the golf course.

I've forged wonderful friendships with people from all over the country ........... through golf.

The small percentage that aren't enjoyable to be with, aren't on my "soon to play again" list.

On the plane from Denver to North Platte we met some nice fellows from San Francisco, at dinner we met other golfers from Pennsylvania and other states.

We all share a common interest, a love of the game, and an understanding of how to play the game, as gentleman.

I guess I"ve been lucky in that the people I've come into contact with through golf are pretty good guys. And as such, that forms the basis of my opinion on the issue.

[Andy Hughes]

View the answer to your question to TEPaul in the context of the nuclear arms race and MAD (mutually assured destruction)
Noone wants to compete on an unequal footing.

I do understand your point and I suspected this was where you were.
But it seems to kinda conflate two different outlooks.
1. Playing the game for the games sake (i.e. the thrill of the architecture, or the joy of hitting certain shots etc).
2. Playing competition where the goal is to win.

Now granted, it is easy to imagine a scenario where you can be playing a match with friends, trying your upmost to win AND also be in situation 1.  But if that is the case, why not just have everyoneplay with older clubs or older balls, or require everyone to leave the driver in the trunk, or have everyone choose only 6 clubs, or some variety like that? If the game is more fun that way, if there is the 'joy' you have expressed, why not have everyone share the joy and still have everyone on an equal footing?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy,

Do you want to have fun ?

Arrange a trip to a special golfing destination with three of your friends rounding out your foursome.

Now, do you want to have a nightmare ?

Try arranging the same trip for four foursomes.

Getting the golfing universe to voluntarily agree to play with certain equipment is impossible.

The solution lies with the USGA and R&A.

They have to introduce a "competition ball"

With respect to the implements, I've long favored a 5-10 year retro fit when it comes to equipment.

Time will tell

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

Understood - that's really what I expected from you - but it does help to understand our different perspectives, no?  Because my experience is this:

 - outside of competition, my experience is 99% good people, 1% assholes.  That 1% are typically forced upon me and not seen more than once.  My experiences with this group and others prior to it have truly solidified the 99%.  

 - in competition, I am not kidding, it's 50/50.  Maybe it was SoCal, maybe it was the fact that damn near all of my competitive golf occurred between ages 12-20, maybe it was just bad luck.  But man I met a lot of true pricks - I could tell some great stories.  When golf ceases to be fun due to the presence of assholes, well why continue with it?  Life is indeed too short.

But anyway, this does go a long way toward explaining our different takes.  To me, I have to be pretty good friends with people before competition gets to be fun; or on the other hand, I have to just decide to block it out and base my "fun" decision on the outcome (which I do from time to time, as I still do play some competitive golf against strangers).

One thing's clear to me though:  if I had your 95/5 experience, I would think a lot differently.  I'd also likely be a way better player.

TH

[John Kirk]

Pat wrote,

"It seems that both you and your dad forged a great relationship.  That's nice."

Yes, but I was also trying to make two points:

A.  My dad's friends loved him for aging gracefully, and that seems to be the road you are taking.

B.  "Buying a better game" can just be for fun, not for ego, and not because of any sense of entitlement.

My favorite sport is basketball.  At age 47 with bad feet and knees, I only play for a few hours a year when I can't resist the temptation.  I enjoy and appreciate it so much more than when I was young and fleet, even though I'm not any good anymore.  It's my favorite few hours of the year.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

Just look at all of the nice people you've met on this site.

Look at how 9 people, introduced to each other through GCA.com, from various parts of the country came together for a few days in June at Sand Hills, and had a great time.

I'd venture to say that between the ages of 12-20 we were all AH's at one time or another, and to varying degrees.
That's part of those years in a young man's life.

But, you shouldn't shape your outlook on that confined period of your life.

Think of the gorgeous terrain at Sand Hills, the blue skys, the sight of the Dismal River, the sounds of Ran's constant whining, the golf we played, the dinners we had, Ran's constant whining, our conversations with Dick Youngscap, rides in the pickup truck to examine the Constellation routing,  the polite and attractive staff that catered to our needs, our host and his son, and Ran's constant whining.  

Does it get any better than that ?

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

Oh I understand all of that PERFECTLY.  That's why I said my experiences with this group and others prior to it solidifed the 99% good guys outside of competition.  That's also why I am very content and happy with my golf life.

I'm just not ready to return to being highly-competitive, that's all.  Or to put it better, my experience in competition makes me avoid it far more than seek it out.  But here's another item that may explain this better:  I never have completely ABANDONED competition - and in so doing, in far less quantity in these years from age 20 to current age 42 - well, nothing has occurred that has shifted the 50/50 ratio.  I still have met plenty of pricks in my forays back into the competitive world.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

A.  My dad's friends loved him for aging gracefully, and that seems to be the road you are taking.

My dad also aged gracefully, although distance remained an attractive nuisance or the Holy Grail for him.  He shot his age from age 67 through age 78.[/color]

B.  "Buying a better game" can just be for fun, not for ego, and not because of any sense of entitlement.

The buying a better game reference was in the context of a repetitive and rapid pursuit, not a normal one.[/color]

My favorite sport is basketball.  At age 47 with bad feet and knees, I only play for a few hours a year when I can't resist the temptation.  I enjoy and appreciate it so much more than when I was young and fleet, even though I'm not any good anymore.  It's my favorite few hours of the year.

John, I played full court basketball in an unlimited league until I was over 50 when my doctor told me that my basketball days were over.
I loved the game and the workout, and went through considerable withdrawal symptoms.

The bad news: I broke my right wrist in my 40's, which adversely affected my golf game.   My putting still hasn't recovered.[/color]

[Andy Hughes]

Do you want to have fun ?
Arrange a trip to a special golfing destination with three of your friends rounding out your foursome.
Now, do you want to have a nightmare ?
Try arranging the same trip for four foursomes.
Getting the golfing universe to voluntarily agree to play with certain equipment is impossible.

Heh, you are more prescient than you know Pat. I am, as we speak, finishing setting up our Spring trip for, you guessed it, 16 of us!  

But much of this has little to do with the ultimate truths here, the desire to throttle back the current clubs and balls.  For our group of 16, I can safely say nobody has had their enjoyment of the game lessened because their equipment has made the game too easy.
None of us much cares for those 55 year olds who carry the ball 300 yards (though I secretly hate them!), and our golf is not in the least impacted by them.

I guess what I am still getting at is:  what is the real impetus for   a technology rollback?  Is it the professionals and top amatuers and their tournaments that have you worried, or the 99.5% of the rest of us?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

Be selective.

Ease back into it.  Pick a tournament or two and see what happens..

You'll find that most guys have mellowed since they were 12-20.  However, I'm one of the exceptions to that rule.

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:  again understand how it hurts me to keep complimenting you, but if I played against YOU all the time, I'd change my attitude.  And I wouldn't even mind the butt-kickings, because hell I'm used to that.  

In any case, well... here's another kicker:  easing back into it is what I've been doing, more or less, for the last 15 years.  The problem is now that given realities of life, I can never practice, and as you know it's tough to be competitively successful given that.

My answer has been this:  to just completely lower expectations and enjoy competition for what it is, not letting anything bother me.  It's worked pretty well.

I just don't think I'll ever get to the state where I seek out competition though.  To me golf remains way more fun outside of it than within it.  

And remember, by competition I mean serious stuff against strangers.  Heck, I'll never turn down a match against friends - OBVIOUSLY.  

[JLahrman]

Pat, I'll quit adding to that other post.

You said you have used irons for 30 years, and you are a quite avid golfer.  Perhaps irons just don't need replacement.  In which case any new iron purchase would be an upgrade.  I'll go with six months if you like.  I know very few of these players.

I would say that older golfers are at the very least not less likely to have the latest and greatest in their bags.  I feel the schism occurs between avid and infrequent players with regards to the likelihood of having the new equipment.  I don't think age or generational differences have anything to do with it.  So I was curious whether by the "me" generation you meant the current older generation vs. younger generation, or you meant society 2006 vs. society 1956.

Nor am I attempting to be coy and dense.  You mentioned that you don't want to use artificial or manmade means to gain distance, when in fact that's what all clubs are.  I'm going to get a new set of irons this year (after 12 with my current set), I'm curious if this action fits your definition of using 'additional, artificial means', as well as if I'm a member of the me generation that may be affecting golf so negatively.  I'm not trying to get longer, but certainly hope they help me play better.  I suppose I'm taking shortcuts although not in the name of distance.

[Jerry Kluger]

Patrick: We of the young wives should recognize that at times it is only important that we are able to use one of our sticks.

[Jordan Wall]

Ive wanted to say this since this thread started.

There is NO joy in LOSING distance?!?

There is LOTS of joy in playing with the old hickory clubs.

[Patrick_Mucci]

You mentioned that you don't want to use artificial or manmade means to gain distance, when in fact that's what all clubs are.  

This is where the disconnect is occuring.

I said, I didn't want to use artificial means to LOSE distance.[/color]

I'm going to get a new set of irons this year (after 12 with my current set), I'm curious if this action fits your definition of using 'additional, artificial means', as well as if I'm a member of the me generation that may be affecting golf so negatively.

No, I think that's perfectly normal, but, if it was your 5th set in the last two years, I'd have my doubts.

I'm about to go to a fitting center and have my ideal specs determined.

Then, I'll probably buy a new set of irons.

I'll attribute the need to purchase on metal fatigue in my old  shafts, but, in my heart of hearts, the reason will be that I no longer possess the ability to swing those irons as they need to be, in order to perform well.[/color]

I'm not trying to get longer, but certainly hope they help me play better.  I suppose I'm taking shortcuts although not in the name of distance.

I feel the same way.
I've never understood how oversized clubheads on irons can improve one's game, so I prefer a small clubhead.  However, I think the weighting and shaft may help me maintain the status quo.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

There is NO joy in LOSING distance?!?

Sure there is, you just don't have the perspective to understand it.

Think of it as learning a new game, or playing on an altered, sometimes more enjoyable golf course with more of the architectural features interfacing with your game.[/color]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()