Is the current trend of male golfers wearing pastel colors appropriate for golf? Since as far back as I can remember, most golf courses have had some manner of dress code. Country clubs / private courses rarely if ever allow denim or t-shirts and some don't allow shorts. Even most public courses don't allow tank tops or playing shirtless. Every course I've ever played insists on shoes being worn.

Now that we know what we can or cannot wear, one question demands to be asked. Is the current trend of pastel colors appropriate for golf?

You see, I'm getting downright disgusted with what some pros wear. I hate the style the game's leading clothiers are attempting to shove down our throats by dressing popular pros in foppish colors.

Is there any wonder why pro golfers are seen by some as non-athletes when they wear what they wear? How can they be taken seriously when they're wearing pink, canary yellow, violet or lime green?

What self-respecting man would wear what Camillo Villegas, Sergio Garcia or even (at times) Phil Mickelson wears?

Pink shirts with white bell-bottom pants sitting below the waist and being held up by a 3" white belt and a gawd-awful belt buckle! Are these people in so need of attention that they have to dress like a circus clown or Boy George? Is their ability to knock a golf ball 300+ yards down the fairway and make a 25-foot putt for birdie not enough?

Pink isn't even the most offending color! Big John Daly - trying to come back from a long PGA ban a couple years ago - looked like a citrus tree radiating with nuclear energy with what he was wearing in Spain. (John - if you're trying to legitimize yourself, take a gander in the mirror before heading outside.)

While I can appreciate the fitness regimen that many golfers endure, I can't fathom how wearing plaid bell-bottoms, all white shoes, a snug-fitting polyester polo shirt and a "fashion" painter's cap can make anyone - let alone Villegas, Ian Poulter or Ryo Ishikawa - think they're attractive or - *gulp!* - masculine.

Villegas is a stud and a bona fide player to boot. But his fashion sense makes Elton John envious. Poulter has the ability to win majors - and maybe he would if he'd stop thinking about taking a walk down the fashion aisle! I'll give Ryo a break 'cause he's not yet 20; but if he's still wearing sparkling blue and teal outfits with red and black spiked hair next year... well, lets just say he'll be nominated as president of the Liberace Fan Club.

Ricky Fowler!? C'mon man, what in the world are you thinking when you tuck your ears INSIDE your cap!?

I coached a kid in Little League that did that and it was accepted only because that was the only way his cap would stay on. At least he had an excuse, a reason and was at age that it didn't matter.

But Ricky? Wow... great player but a walking crayon box. And that stupid giant puma logo everywhere?

Oh man, you gotta love the classics like Titleist, Taylor Made, Ping, Callaway, Cleveland, Hogan, Top Flight... Puma? PUH-LEASE!

Poor Phil Mickelson. It's obvious he has a bit of a weight problem (hey, who doesn't?) but he insists on wearing form-fitting shirts and pants that sit too low on his somewhat flabby body. He looks downright silly - almost like his mother bought him the clothes and he HAS to wear them. At least he's not wearing pastel or bright colors. Gotta give him a point or two for that!

I'll also applaud any golfer wearing pink in support of cancer research. But if they're wearing pink because it matches their daily wardrobe, then they need to go watch some John Wayne and Ahnuld Shwarzeneggar movies for a boost of testosterone.

Not everyone can have Tiger's physique - then again not everyone can have most of what he has. But I gotta give him his due for dressing like a man. Conservative pants, unobtrusive belt and buckle and normal shirts. Even his cap is normal. Here's a guy that is above normal in the world of golf and he dresses like many of us do for work.

I used to marvel at Payne Stewart and his knickers. He was wearing them as a dedication to the game. Payne was a class act and he played guitar with a championship caliber game to boot! He was one-of-a-kind and continues to be missed.

The crap that's being worn by so many golfers now, hearkens back to the 70s and 80s... remember some of those wardrobes Nicklaus, Watson, Norman, Trevino and Johnny Miller used to wear? They were awful in that era and they're just as terrible now. I have to ask why anyone would want to wear clothes like that.

I thought Jesper Parnevik was a train wreck a few years ago. Now he's almost the picture of conservative dress. Almost. I can't stand it.

Can you imagine going to work in white pants and a tight-fitting lime green polo shirt? With a zipper instead of buttons!? And wearing a pink painters cap? Can you imagine wearing an outfit like that and not getting laughed off your home course?

I guess this is the course golf has taken... it started in Scotland with men wearing kilts. Now the game is played the world-over by men wearing skin-tight, fuschia-colored shirts with zippers, yellow and brown checked bell-bottomed pants, peace-symbol belt buckles on a lilac 3" belt and pure all white golf shoes.

Jeeze... Ben Hogan is rolling over in his grave and I'm gonna vomit!

What do you think? Let me know... - Back to Top -

Are golf magazine subscriptions worth the money?At one point or another I've subscribed to at least four golf magazines. The two major ones eventually won out over the others when I whittled down. Now, I'm proud to say, I'm down to one subscription. I like the magazine and find it useful up to a point.

I like the tips and lessons - even though they sometimes contradict eachother - I can only laugh at that and chalk it up to another remedy to try! I like "in-depth" articles, the "quality of life" articles, etc. One magazine had an interview/article about Mickey Mantle's golf pro a year or so ago and I thought it was excellent. The same magazine interviewed Rocco Mediate and Darren Clarke in separate issues and they were fantastic. Recently the Dustin Johnson interview brought more light on the man. Each of the articlez humanized and normalized these men.

I do find the enthusiasm with which the magazines delve into Tiger's woes a little over the top. Personally, I'm in a quandary about Tiger. I loved to see him win "back in the day." But since that fateful Thanksgiving eve, I'm not so much of a fan. Though I still find myself rooting for him. I was charged up when he made his charge in the Masters on Sunday. I was really pulling for him. It'd be interesting to see if one of those mags could humanize him. I'm really not sure it can be done.

The subscription deals they offer are good - not too much money is shelled out for a two-year sub. You do get useful information - but the same info and more can be found on free internet sites (and I don't necessarily mean this one!).

For an Average Joe, I find their recommendations for apparel absurd. $150 for golf pants? $200 for a cardigan sweater? $250 for shoes? Socks for $90? C'mon... what muni or weekend golfer is going to spend that kind of money? Same with their wine recommendations. I'll have a glass of wine now and then, but it usually comes out of a box or $3.99 bottle! I like Duffy and the Shark, and they undoubtedly know of what they speak, but choosing a wine from one's wine cellar just isn't in the cards for 90% of the world's golfers.

Having said that I know the magazine has to appeal to all walks of life - blue collar as well as white collar. That's fine. No issue with that.

But if you're going to have a wine column, why not also have a similar column devoted to afficianados of beer!? Now the magazine would be targeting 90% more golfers! Advertisers like large readership and cross-platform target audiences. It'd be a win-win situation. They could even put the article in the back!

I'll keep my sub until it runs out. Then I'm pretty sure I'll let it lapse.

Unless they add the beer column.

What do you think? Let me know... - Back to Top -

There's one thing being a cautious and methodical player and one thing being agonizingly slow. We've all seen golfers in the wrong fairway, trying to decide on hitting over the trees or under to get back to our own fairway. All the while, the group behind are waiting their turn to tee off and the foursome in the wrong fairway are forcing the wayward golfer to wait to make his shot. Meanwhile his partners are scrambling around their own shots and trying to blast a 300 yard second shot with a 5 iron when their driver only made 200 at best. UGH!

Now I know not everyone can make shots that remain playable in the correct fairway all the time. Heck even pros don't do that. But what really chaps my hide is those guys that wait and wait and wait to make that perfect shot that even a pro would try. Then duff it. Or maybe they hit - even hit it well - but they're about 100 yards short of the group ahead - you know the one they were waiting for to clear the area! This is a common problem on public courses and it needs to be addressed.

That kind of play slows a round by hours when coupled with the same scenario playing itself out on several holes. The days of a 4.5 hour round are gone! But what can be done about it?

What do you think? Let me know... - Back to Top -

Coinciding with the slow players are the "less than average golfers" who compound slow play. They're at the course to have a beer with the guys and think hitting a golf ball is child's play. Little do they know - because they haven't hit a ball in years if ever - that hitting a golf ball is an athletic motion and one that must be practiced. These "once in a blue moon" golfers are a joke to behold. From wearing jeans and tennis shoes to using persimmon laminates found in "dad's garage," they're also a big nuisance. Most don't even know rules and hold up play by their near total inability to play golf.

Again, this needs to be addressed. I know courses can't limit the type of player - that creates a whole 'nother issue. But clearly, these "less than average" golfers should be educated to the rules and etiquette of golf. Let faster and better players play through at the forefront. But also reminding them to fix ball marks, keep carts on paths and don't shout "YOU DA MAN" everytime one of their foursome hits a 150 yard drive off the tee!

Perhaps a mandatory "lesson" in etiquette prior to their round and a marshal check-up every few holes would help. It couldn't harm!

What do you think? Let me know... - Back to Top -

Each year the major manufacturers tout their new lineup. This one has a 460cc face, best MOI and blah, blah, blah... So now you're so enticed to buy the best driver EVER (and it's white, how cool is that!?) and you just bought the best driver ever LAST YEAR!

Will that new driver (or iron set, wedge, hybrid, fairway wood) actually improve your game by measurable strokes? Haven't we always been told that it's the swing not the club? Crappy swing equals crappy result. Right?

Maybe not. The technology that goes into each new club design may be marginally better than the previous issue but it IS better. Game improvement clubs are just that - they help your game improve. Your unorthodox swing and impact is helped out by more forgiving clubs which produce better and more accurate ball flight. If your swing isn't as terrible as some, that only helps the game improvement clubs work even better.

The problem more advanced golfers have with game improvement irons is that they're harder to "work" due to their characteristics. That is solved by going to blades or less of a cavity-back iron. The more advanced player doesn't need game improvement - he wants to hit a slight draw or bend a 5-iron around a tree. Blades and non-cavity back irons help the player do that instead of a game improvement club which will be so forgiving it'll straighten out the ball flight.

But at what cost do we finally put our foot down and say "NO MORE!" Do we balk at $120 wedges that are now "conforming" even though we bought the last wedge only years ago because it had better grooves! Or do we play it like we used to play records "til the grooves wear out."

I'm very happy with my current set of clubs. They're about 4 years old now and I still like them. I bought a new driver last year and am in no hurry to buy another one. It keeps me in the fairway about 80% of the time and I'm fairly confident with it. My putter is probably 15 years old - an old Taylor Made Nubbins Mallet. I like the soft insert. It's great for my play. I've tried others and spent hundreds looking for that ONE perfect putter. But the Nubbins keeps finding it's way in my bag.

Are you OK with spending a couple hundred on a new club every year? How much are you willing to spend - and how often - to get the best, newest club EVER? Does the manufacturer make a difference? Is name recognition a deal breaker? Do endorsements carry any weight?

What do you think? Let me know... - Back to Top -