I’m guessing the idea is that your hips should rotate and butt of the club fall backwards, rather than press into the butt of the club? Can one replicate at home without someone holding club?
I've seen other threads about daily trail shoes with lots of good tips, but they tend to be focused on the performance of the shoe, not on the aesthetics. I'm quite relaxed about shoe performance. My feet are happy in anything light and minimal and breathable.
I currently own the cheapest decathlon trail running shoes, I wear them for long distance road running and everything else. So my feet aren't too fussy. I just like having running shoes with traction (so that I can also use them off road, golf, playing sport in the garden etc), but must be light and breathable. The only reason to change from my decathalon pair is that I'd prefer something just a bit more stylish.
Not looking for anything fancy. The opposite, just relatively low profile, neutral, stylish, nothing too brash or chunky (by trail shoe standards).
I find it hard to evaluate from pictures, you really only know once you've worn the shoe with some outfits, so hoping for personal recommendations of trail shoes you have found to look decent in a daily urban setting.
I couldn't get my X3 to nicely stick to the back of my iPhone 17 and was really annoying me. I finally figured it out and thought I share the exact way. I presume this applies to other phones as well.
You need the ring magnet that comes with the x3.
First you take the magnet and you just attach it magnetically to the top of the x3 like shown
Note that the 3M adhesive paper is facing up because that "gluey" side will attach to my phone case not to the e-reader.
The ring magnet forms a strong magnetic connection to the e-reader as shown near the top of the device with the logo in the upper half of the circle.
Then you simply remove the adhesive paper and, with ring magnet still on the e-reader, hold the e-reader against back of phone case (back to back) so that the ereader is positioned below the camera but high enough so that its not hanging over edge of case.
Like so
Now the ring magnet should stick to the case in exact right position. Prior to this I had the ring magnet stuck to the case less than 1cm (1/3 inch) lower and that alignment just didn't hold the device nicely for some reason.
The important trick is first to get the magnet to stick magnetically to the right place on the ereader and then to use that placement to guide you on where the ereader fits nicely on the cover, which in turn guides the placement of the ring magnet.
Interestingly, this placement exactly aligns with the built in magnet on my magsafe phone cover. But the ereader does NOT stick to that clear case with the built in magnet. Presumably the x3 likes the ring magnet to be sticking out a bit, not embedded in the case.
Perhaps this is very obvious and documented elsewhere but I didn't find this answer so thought it might be useful to others..
What I need to figure out still is what happens when the x3 has a cover on it..
EDIT: I notice that the ereader still slides and rotates a bit because the lower part is not magnetised. So experimenting with solutions still. Solutions welcome
Getting back into golf for first time in years. Haven’t played course properly yet. Lots of time on the par 3 course (averaging 32 - 36 for 9 holes but I think I’ve got a sub 30 in me soon), plenty putting practice, driving range. Happy with progress .
I’m driving consistently and straight but seems maxed at 200m even when it feels like a perfect hit.
Just did 2 sneaky holes on the real course after a range session. Both drives hit fairway, 200m.
I’m also chipping and pitching fairly well.
Putting needs work. Full iron shots biggest weakness right now.
Anyway, everything can improve, but the drives already feel so good that it’s hard to imagine getting much more distance. Even if I’m wrong, treat this as hypothetical, let’s say for some reason i never manage to hit further. But the other parts of my game develop fairly well. Does that driving distance (and of course my other clubs also similar relative distance), make it very hard to get a good handicap? If so where do I realistically start to hit my upper limit?
I’m getting back into golf after many years. Haven’t hit course yet, trying to improve short game first. But just playing on chip-and-putt courses and observing the greens on real courses where I go to practice on, I’m not understanding where the bump and run opportunities arise.
But so much of the books, YouTube vids, and discussions here on Reddit advocate for the bump and run as the default chipping strategy.
Assuming we also follow the advice of putting wherever possible including fringe or fairway, that means you basically only chip if there’s rough between you and the green which means you’re in a somewhat set back position.. assuming you’re also looking to land on the green, in almost all cases you’re gonna have at least 50% flight distance. So you’re seldom gonna get to go below PW?
So why are Dan Grieves and seemingly everyone advising that much of your chipping happens with a 9 iron or longer?
Despite me phrasing this as an assertion, I admit ignorance, it’s just easier for me to ask a question by expressing how my mind understands it. I do understand that I’m probably missing something. Perhaps it will become clearer when I’m on course. But in the interim I’m just keen to understand how this usually plays out.
A guy posted about this problem yesterday
https://www.reddit.com/r/malefashionadvice/comments/1ve9o1e/comment/p1hkzqc/?context=1&screen_view_count=2&ext-referrer=SEO
Everyone said its because trousers are too long, or need to be ironed or they're too tight. I said that I have this issue all the time with trousers even when they're baggy, hemmed and ironed. Photos below for example.. I have numerous trousers or jeans with this issue..
My best explanation is that there is some sort of shaping in the trousers which is designed for longer legs so for shorter guys it throws something off, our knees are higher than the trouser "expects" or something like that. But I'm trying to get a more specific understanding so that I can see if its something I can tailor.
High handicap golfer, getting back into golf after long time, and trying to tighten up short game. Where I'm confused is that my experience of pitching and chipping seems different to what i'm seeing described. To me it feels like the key challenge when trying to land the ball on the green from any distance, be it 5m or 150m, is getting the ball to stick. There are occasions of course where I feel like there's space to let the ball run a bit, especially if I'm below the hole and green slopes upwards, but 90% of the time when I'm aiming for the green, I feel like my biggest challenge (aside from actually hitting the green) is making it stay on.
If I'm chipping from close its hard to get enough loft and backspin and there's usually a risk of either hitting past the hole or off the green. And when I'm a bit further back then loft is easier to generate but the velocity of the ball is such that (at my level) there's also always the risk of it bouncing and rolling too far if I slightly miss hit..
Where I'm confused is that most short game resources seem to treat loft and backspin as a bit secondary. One example is Dan Grieve 3 releases, the third release is treated as the least common release, and first release as most common. To me it feels like the other way around. Although I do appreciate that 3 is harder to execute than 1.
Same goes for all other resources I see. The default chipping method that most people recommend to me feels not so useful on the course. To me it feels like in most cases that gives me high chance of over hitting.. So I tend to fear the shot and under hit.. My instinct is therefore almost always to add more wrist action, get the ball a bit forward in my stance, and try to generate a bit more loft. That "feels" safer to me, even though the common wisdom seems to treat that as a riskier, less common shot..
Even if lets say I'm 3m from the green and there's 10m of green before the hole, most resources it seems would advise to give it a little low chip and let it run.. Many would even advise a less lofted club for this like a 9 iron. To me it feels like if i try to do that, there there's every chance I overhit it and it runs way past, EVEN if I make nice contact with soft hands, it just feels like its so hard to get that pace right, and that its much easier for me to take my sand wedge, add a bit of loft and hit it lets say 8m in the air and then lets it just roll a little bit..
Why does my experience feel so different to what the norm APPEARS to be? Am I misunderstanding something? Are my instincts just wrong?
Hi all. HHC golfer here getting back into the game after many years. Starting to work on short game and a few things I'm a bit unclear about. For purposes of this question I'm not distinguishing between pitch and chip. Basically I'm talking about the simple basic pitch, not trying to create massive extra loft, huge amount of wrist hinge or anything, basic pitch with perhaps slightly open face.
Aiming with open club face: If chipping with slightly open club face must the club face aim at the target line? Which means my feet would be slightly open relative to target line? Its not like the face should be open to the target line but then my swing arc would make the ball travel towards the target?
Different stance and swing arc between pitch and full shot: What to do with longer chips? My understanding is with a chip my feet are almost together, my weight stays mostly on front foot throughout, wrist action is minimal, and backswing is slightly outside the plane to slightly cut the ball. these elements are all opposite of what one does with a normal full swing. So what happens in those in-between shots, lets say 50m? I understand the idea of the clock system for different length shots. Do I keep the same pitch mechanics regardless of where in the clock my hands are going, and once I reach the max distance with that do I then change mechanics to normal swing mechanics? Currenty for longer chips I'm in two minds about the technique so I'm sort of winging it and changing it shot to shot. But what i do find is that when I extend my swing arc my swing naturally "wants" to adopt the mechanics of a normal swing. For example its starts to feel unnatural to take the club head outside the plane.. And I'm unclear if I should continue to apply the mechanics I've learned for chipping shots when i' hitting lets say 50/60m. If this question is unclear let me know and i will try clarify?
Let’s say high handicap golfer hits 25% of his shots to a very satisfactory level in terms of good contact, flight, distance direction. And the rest are bad in all the ways golf shots can be bad..
Can this golfer film his shots, study what is different in his swing between his good and bad shots, and then just work in alleviating that difference? Is this a valid and good way to improve (whether he does that himself or with a coach)?
Or, the fact that only 25% of his shots are good implies that his swing is fundamentally inconsistent, and it’s just he sort of gets lucky 25% of the time?
I know the difference seems trivial but it changes how you approach improvement so seems quite important to me?
It seems to me that when you look at pros, there are very few hard rules about a golf swing. You can make almost anything work.. so by that logic, the fact that I hit 25% of my shots good, suggests that my swing CAN work, and studying the delta between my good and bad shots, and eliminating those differences is how to do so..
Don’t be patronizing and shit on me for being wrong. I’m not claiming to have solved golf. I’m just grappling with this in my mind and the best way to ask about this is to express it like a conviction. As far as I can tell this is not how coaches or anyone goes about improving a golf swing.. I’m just wondering why not?
Please expect me to push back on your answer. It’s not me saying I know better or that you’re wrong. It’s how I develop an understanding of a topic, by expressing the reasons why my brain is struggling to “buy into” an idea. I need to understand something fully for my brain to accept it even if I know the person telling me is more knowledgeable and knows better. Like if tiger woods told do x and I KNOW he’s right but I don’t understand why, then my brain would sort of rebel and struggle to implement it.
Just listening to Simple Twist of Fate, and having basically a religious experience, it’s so incredibly beautiful.
So I look up live performances of the song and it’s almost like Bob refuses to do the song justice on stage, refuses to let it evoke that level of depth and beauty again. Why would he do that? I think because he understands how sacred it is. It’s distasteful to just churn it out. It will tarnish the song to perform it like a party trick. I feel that for the original recording he brought it to life. And of course we can listen to that on repeat.. but the song is almost extra special because he doesn’t go out and perform it at that level again. On some level I think he gets that.
Of course the same could be said for any of his many many masterpieces that never quite get done justice when he performs them live..
I dunno, just a thought.
Hi. Clueless secular jew here trying to find my son's barmitzvah portion and to learn it with him online.
I think I've identified the portion as Tzav from Leviticus.. The Chabad tool for learning a portion then has a drop down with 7 portions and Haftarah. Which of these would my son typically be required to read out?
Gemini says he would read the Maftir but I dont see that as an option
Here is screenshot from Chabad website.
