Good news comes to those who skim. And skim again. Steve Thom of North Aurora, Illinois, has found Stack & Tilt and is loving it.

I told myself I would regularly break 90 this year, but moped along at 100 every time I played. I was cursed with a nasty hook and maddening fats and thins. Lots of trial and error - not to mention countless buckets of balls - later I started experimenting with spine angle and on a whim tried holding myself to the left on the backswing. To my delight, the hook disappeared!

I felt like an idiot (albeit a vindicated idiot) when I started researching the issue only to find the June “Stack and Tilt” report. How on earth did I skip that? How many range balls have I tortured needlessly? There’s lots of golfing left to do this fall. I think my goal of breaking 90 just got the break it needed.

 

There is lots of golfing this fall, Steve, and for guys like us from Michigan and Illinois, with perhaps less necessity to be inside and watch college football than usual. There's also a bit more reading...Stack & Tilt Part II in the September issue. Also, check out editor Peter Finch's video lesson with "the new tour swing." He's stuck to it, he says, and is playing better. Good luck with S & T!

--Bob Carney

(Photo: Chris Stanford)

You wail, in lively letters to us, about pace of play. Without putting too fine a point on it, a few of you are approaching homicide over the television-trained duffers you play behind. This week you'll watch the Presidents Cup and wonder how it's possible to play a two-ball that takes longer than the law boards.

Which brings me to Indian cricket. Ancient, unchanging, out-of-step, cricket.

Did you catch the story in the Times yesterday about India's new compact, (3-hour instead of 5-days) version of cricket called Twenty20? Writer Somini Sengupta described the young Indian side:

Not only was the game different, but the team was unlike those past. This one was youthful, hip, dynamic and very...well, uncricket. Its members played fast and furious. They danced victoriously on the cricket pitch.....

Where gentlemen players once distinguished themselves in white trousers and knit vests, Twenty20 was accompanied by cheerleaders wearing what resembled sports bras. Restraint was out. Music was in.

This was no Play Cricket India promotion. This was "kamikaze cricket," someone called it, designed to revive a stuffy game.

Our problem is different. We're not stuffy. We're stuck. We've turned the game into a National Molasses- pouring contest. And we can't change.

Here's what I mean. This summer I played in a member-guest where flights of 8 played seven nine hole matches against one another. Two-and-half to three hours a nine.

Closer to home, our magazines, Golf World and Golf For Women on one side and Golf Digest on the other, play an annual Presidents Cup/Ryder Cup match. Most years it takes us six hours. Never less than five. Someone suggested the equivalent of kamikaze cricket: the alternate shot or foursomes format. Traditional. Quick. Still a good walk and still 18 holes. The response: Nothing doing. I want to play my own ball.

I know it's not true everywhere. We played quickly in a Cuscowilla member guest last weekend, where the competition never got in the way of the fun. But that's rare. An old editor friend said today that nine holes was our future: "Two hours, just the right amount of time." I agree. If we could play nine holes in two hours.

I'd love to think we can save the 18-hole round, too. Maybe it's time we took a lesson from that wild-and-crazy game, cricket.

--Bob Carney

(Photo: Alexander Joe/Agence France-Presse--Getty Images)

Dennis1, responding the FedEx Cup suggestions post here takes us to task for not covering Tiger's final "snub" of Tim Finchem at the closing ceremonies:

"Am I the only one that noticed the snub Tiger Woods gave Tim Finchem during the presentation of the Fed Ex Cup. Finchem handed the cup to Tiger and said that it had never been kissed, implying that Tiger should kiss the cup. Tiger looked at the cup but wouldn't kiss it. This was Tiger's way of showing his disdain for the way the FedEx Cup was crammed down their throats. I thought it was intended for all of us to see the tension between Tiger and Finchem. I Haven't seen any mention of this in magazines orsports pages. Are you guys afraid to print this story?"

"I thought it was pretty obvious watching the presentation that Finchem very much wanted Tiger to kiss the trophy and Tiger was making a point of not kissing it," said one...

In general, Tiger does not like to be pushed or forced to do anything, so this was his naturally contrary nature at work. But I also think he was sending a messag from himself and the players that the FedEx has not yet earned the kiss until some changes are made. As far as no coverage, I've seen it in several stories (Ferguson asked Tiger the question in the victory press conference and Tiger laughed it off), but perhaps it fell through the cracks at Golf World. "Snub" might not be the right word, but Tiger definitely defied Finchem.

Not quite, said another tour regular. Tiger's dissatisfied with aspects of the FedEx Cup, especially the deferred compensation, but this was not defiance.

He smooches the hardware when he wins majors. Don't know if he puts his lips on anything else that is awarded on an 18th green. As Finchem goes, I'd rate their relationship as a 4 on a 1-to-10 scale.

Not the hugs-and-kisses level for sure.

--Bob Carney

Dr. Andrew Williams of Repentigny, Quebec failed to find the "fun" in the Golf des Isles experience mentioned in our Long Weekend in October. Golf des Isles, you may recall, was one of several courses not far from this week's Presidents Cup that we recommended you try....

I noticed that your October issue mentions http://www.golfdesiles.com/ as a "fun" alternative to higher end course. Sure, fun if you like being chased like one of the local deer by the marshals, or searched by the ferry operator who has instructions to ensure you are not bringing your own food or water to the course... Yes, the view of the skyline is nice -- as is the view of the docks and discharging freighters -- but there are literally dozens of other cheaper, more picturesque courses in the Montreal area that are far more interesting and hospitable.

Doctor, I'm with you. I hate being chased like a deer. Perhaps you prefer the Club de Golf de l'ile de Montreal course (right) also mentioned in the story, by Patrick Ruddy of European Club fame. I haven't spent much time in Quebec, but my wife and I played a scenic Graham Cooke design called Owl's Head in Mansonville, just over the Vermont border and about 60 miles from Montreal. Our tightly-contested, annual anniversary competition resulted in several hours of chilly silence, as I recall. Good match play course.

--Bob Carney

(Photo Courtesy of Course)

California Reader Ed Reeder liked the Golf Tech story on driver versus 3-wood in the October issue:

I must say that your "Tight Fairway? Hit Your Driver", by Mike Stachura in October, was one of the best true science, no hype articles I have seen in a major golf publication for quite some time. Please keep presenting the facts that enable your readers to make informed choices!

That's our goal, Ed. I loved the piece, too, because it gave me permission to hit driver all day the last few rounds I've played. Missed about the same number of fairways.

So thanks. David Webber says he might have liked the story but our new layout uses a type size that's too small. He's not alone.

Your October 2007 issue was very interesting. At least the samll portion I could read...One wold think that the demographics of your reader wold be older than younger. Older means they probably had as hard a time reading the small print as I did....

--Bob Carney

I'm surprised we don't get this question more often. This comes from Ed Higgins of St. Louis:

You may have covered this in the past, but perhaps you could consider an article about course ratings and slopes.  I just returned from a wonderful trip to California, where we played Pebble, Spyglass and Spanish Bay and as I compared my experiences with the calculated difficulty of the course, they didn't match up, at least for me.  What's the difference between the two numbers?  Is one more predictive?  Is a course with a slope of 140 supposed to be ten strokes harder than one with a slope of 130 (with some adjustment for your handicap)?  Is length weighed more heavily than green speed?  Is the whole rating thing subjective or are there uniform standards?  Can you offer a "pocket converter" for the average player? 

Course rating is what a scratch player would shoot on the course. If the rating is 72.0, his or her score would be very close to that.

Slope rating is an indication of how much harder the course gets as one's handicap increases. If an average slope is 115, say, that's a gentle increase. A slope of 140 is an abrupt one, meaning that a 15 handicap will score much higher than the course rating plus 15.

Factors that contribute to course rating are carefully enumerated by course raters, usually from the state golf association, trained by the USGA and these associations. They include distance, rough, hazards, etc. Raters are educated about what contributes to a higher slope. For example, a 225-yard forced carry over water may not be a problem for the scratch player, but would be a huge problem for the high-handicapper. The presence or absence of such forced carries may result in a very different slope for courses of similar ratings. All of these factors are carefully codified, allowing for objective, consistent ratings and slopes from one course to another.

Hope this helps. Good idea for a story, though.

--Bob Carney

Ed McCreedy of Colt's Neck New Jersey liked David Owen's Back-Roads Scotland piece in October, recognizing a few of his own adventures in the story.

I thoroughly enjoyed David Owens' article, which hit the sweet spot. Having made about 14 trips to Scotland and played some 50 courses there (including all the biggies), my best memories are of those out of the way courses that one stumbles on. I've been fortunate to play Boat of Garten twice, and it is special. I would recommend nearby Carrbridge and Elgin on his next venture. Jim Finegan's writing [Where Golf is Great, Workman] led me to the nine hole course at Anstruther, with its dogleg par three along the  Firth of Forth. Last year, while staying in Aberfeldy. I played the course there, and asked a local road worker where else I should play. He suggested the nine hole course at Strathtay (in preference to the better known Pitlochry). I played nine holes alone on the course (5 pounds in the honor box) and another golfer arrived who played a second nine with me. A great hilly and quirky course. My new friend suggested we play Taymouth Castle the next day, which we did, for a completely different experience. I highly recommend Mr. Owens' method for getting to know a great country and its real golf experience.

Here's a theory, accepted only by this writer so far, on why: Because for one soggy, windy, feckless week, we are knocked and kicked free of our obsession with score. We play the sport we've turned into work. It's why we like playing your courses, Pete. Once in a while.

--Bob Carney

(Photo of Pete Dye's Ocean Course by Stephen Szurlej)

Robert Irwin of Sonora, California thinks we were sonoring when wrote the Rules Pop Quiz in the October issue. First, the quiz:

Q: You think the ball you just hit is in a water hazard, but you're not sure. Can you play a provisional ball?

A: Yes, but if it turns out the ball went into the hazard, the provisional must be abandoned, and you must proceed with your original ball.

Mr. Irwin isn't buying this. He feels that it reveals a laxness toward our rules column that is unacceptable:

You need to work harder to make sure that information presented in your "Rules" feature is correct. Rule 27-2 is quite clear, as is Decision 27-2a/2, and your October column contradicts them both. This is not the first time that I have found a rules error presented by your magazine, but it will be the last.

The question and answer on page 64 to which you refer is correct. If you check Decision 26-1/1, you will find "a player may NOT deem his ball lost in a water hazard simply because he thinks the ball may be in the hazard."

The question read, "You think the ball you just hit is in a water hazard but YOU'RE NOT SURE. Can you play a provisional ball?" Of course you can. There is not reasonable evidence to support the ball being lost in the hazard. In this case, if you don't find it in the hazard or outside, it should be treated as a lost ball.

Here's the key section of Rule 26-1:

Relief for Ball in Water Hazard It is a question of fact whether a ball lost after having been struck toward a water hazard is lost inside or outside the hazard. In order to treat the ball as lost in the hazard, there must be reasonable evidence tht the ball lodged in it. In the absence of such evidence, the ball must be treated as a lost ball and Rule 27 applies.

And the section of Rule 27-2:

Provisional Ball/Procedure If a ball may be lost outside a water hazard or may be out of bounds, to save time the player may play another ball provisionally in accordance with Rule 27-1. The player must inform his opponent in match play or his marker or fellow-competitor in stroke play that he intends to play a provisional ball, and he must play it before his or his partner goes foward to search for the original ball.

--Bob Carney

What a wonderful weekend for a kid from Michigan--38-0 wonderful, as a matter of fact--or anyone willing to rise early enough to watch thehttp://www.lpgascoring.com/9391/leaderboard/leaderboard.html. Brutal weather. Entertaining, if not always artful, golf. Lively commentary, even, as with Dottie Pepper's "Chokin' Dogs" comment, it wasn't intended.

But I was struck, after all of the discussion about Stack & Tilt in our magazine and on several blogs including this one, that most of the women's swings don't in any way resemble the S&T move. For the most part (I'm thinking Creamer, Gulbis, Inskter to name a few) players on both sides seemed to make swings closer to Curtis Strange than to Aaron Baddeley. Pat Hurst's steep move was perhaps the closest to what Andy Plummer and Mike Bennett are teaching, and Laura Davies move at impact resembled "the upward thrust of the lower body" that they talk about, but those were exceptions. Be interested in what the rest of you think....

--Bob Carney

Canadian kinesiologist Josh Leyes is leaning "no" on the Stack & Tilt, despite all the testimonials we've printed here.

I was intrigued upon my first reading about the "New Tour Swing" in the June issue, and was surprised to see another article on Plummer and Bennett's "Stack and Tilt" theory in the September issue. Having a degree in kinesiology and being a certified golf biomechanic, I must say that some of the ideas that they present about the golf swing as fact are simply asinine.

They contend that there should be no lateral move behind the ball in the backswing, but rather a slight shift toward the target. When have you ever seen a big league pitcher throw a 100 mph fastball by keeping their weight on his front foot in the windup? Or have you ever seen a heavyweight boxer deliver a knockout punch by keeping his weight on his lead foot? Never! It is simple physics that in any throwing motion (and the golf swing is such a motion) over 50% of the power generated in the swing/throw will come from the ground up. To do this efficiently there must be a loading of the right side followed by an unloading onto the left side (for a righty).

Josh challenges us to put the players on device that could measure weight at various points in the swing. Not a bad idea.

I think that Stack and Tilt ideas may give players a "feel" so they stay on top of the ball, but there is definitely a lateral shift of body weight in any decent backswing and that is fact, not feel.

And the real test of the method, he argues, is time.

I know that this is a new swing idea and is hot right now, but I will be interested to see if Plummer and Bennett's ideas stand the test of time like Ben Hogan's Five Lessons, which is still the basic blueprint for the fundamentals of the swing.

Fair enough. But I know folks who could never master Hogan's moves who are using Stack & Tilt to play better and pros whose careers it has revived. As editor Pete Finch, who made a video of his lesson, says, it's simplifies things for him. Never a bad thing.

--Bob Carney

(Photo by Chris Stanford)