| |
Main
Date: 24 Sep 2006 16:32:26
From:
Subject: Callaway pre owned which one would you pick?
|
Buying clubs from callaway preowned golf, need opinions and info to
help decide or what types of things i should look at to help me decide.
I am new to golf playing for a few months a few times a months. looking
at these clubs wondering differences, similaritys, which one you would
pick and why?
Steelhead X-16 3-PW
1. true temper.
2. royal precision rifle.
Big Bertha '04 4-10,W
1. true temper.
three choices the x-16 have a 3 iron but no 10 and come in either true
temper or rifle. the bertha only come in true temper, at least thats
all thats available right now. I have heard that the berthas are more
forgiving but are they that much more forgiving. if they are good for
high handicappers like i have read. if/when i get better will they
hinder shot making ability that much or will i never really get to that
point if i only plan to be a recreational player playing 3 time a month
on average. thanks for all your help and opions in advance.
|
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2006 20:47:42
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Callaway pre owned which one would you pick?
|
Read my post titled "New Toys."
(Warning: It may take a while.) :-)
Randy
<Kamachi923@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1159140746.180345.58820@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Buying clubs from callaway preowned golf, need opinions and info to
> help decide or what types of things i should look at to help me decide.
> I am new to golf playing for a few months a few times a months. looking
> at these clubs wondering differences, similaritys, which one you would
> pick and why?
>
> Steelhead X-16 3-PW
> 1. true temper.
> 2. royal precision rifle.
> Big Bertha '04 4-10,W
> 1. true temper.
>
> three choices the x-16 have a 3 iron but no 10 and come in either true
> temper or rifle. the bertha only come in true temper, at least thats
> all thats available right now. I have heard that the berthas are more
> forgiving but are they that much more forgiving. if they are good for
> high handicappers like i have read. if/when i get better will they
> hinder shot making ability that much or will i never really get to that
> point if i only plan to be a recreational player playing 3 time a month
> on average. thanks for all your help and opions in advance.
>
|
| |
Date: 25 Sep 2006 05:45:57
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Re: Scott Verplank sounds off on Michelle
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 21 Sep 2006 05:46:13 -0700, "oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com"
> <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
>
> > I think she would benefit from the same thing that all the men do.
> >Play on the mini tours and Nationwide tour. Playing on the LPGA
> >won't challenge her game the way the men's setups will.
>
> Have any men chosen that route who have had the option of playing on
> PGA tour events instead?
Dozens. You'll find alot of players on the Nationwide tour that have
had a sponsor exemption or two on the PGA Tour. There's nothing
"wrong" about her playing on the Tour when she get's the chance.
The real issue is whether that is the "only" thing she should be doing.
I can understand her position that she needs to compete with the
men to get where she wants to be. I mean, look, she is 16-17
and already a major player on the LPGA. Playing and winning there
isn't really gonna get her where she wants to go. But I suspect
that, much like any 16 year old of any gender, her best path
may be through the Nationwide. The TOUR had increased the
numbers of cards to the leading Nationwide winners and decreased
the numbers to Q-school.
|
|
