Pros: Oakley’s golf polos and Take 3.0 pants are engineered to keep sweat at a minimum, stretch enough to allow for freedom of movement and have enough style options no matter what you’re into. At $65 and $75 respectively, the price is far from a deal-breaker.
Cons: The Take 3.0 pants are made from a thin material that is great in warm climates, but they won’t do much to keep golfers warm when the temperatures drop. They’re also slimmer and have more stretch than other golf pants, so body-conscious golfers beware.
Bottom Line: Oakley’s latest line of golf apparel will appeal to golfers who value the performance of their golf garb above all else. The company’s shirts and pants are fantastic for golfers looking to stay cool in warm climates, and there’s enough styles and colors to suit the tastes of the sportiest dressers while still offering something for those who prefer a more understated look.
Oakley’s golf apparel is a fairly new arrival on the PGA Tour scene, but it’s catching on quickly. Those trusting the company’s apparel include Bubba Watson, Ricky Barnes, Derek Ernst and Zach Johnson — golfers who have different builds and tastes in fashion — showing the line’s versatility and variety. That’s the biggest strength of Oakley’s golf line; it provides both conventional designs and ones that feed the appetite of golfers looking for more flair.
The company has made inroads in the golf world thanks to its reputation as a provider as high-performing, sport-specific gear, particularly with its incredibly deep line of golf-specific sunglasses. With apparel, the company has focused on creating athlete-minded clothes that offers some of the best moisture-wicking performance on the market.
Oakley’s pants and polos are tremendously flexible, durable and available in a wide variety of styles and colors. See below for all of the technological designs that I tested for this review.
For this review I tested three pairs of Oakley’s Take 3.0 Pants: Jet Black (size 32 x 34), Wood Gray (32 x 34) and White (32 x 32), which are $75 each on Oakley’s website. The pants are made with the company’s O Hyrdolix fabric to manage moisture and UV protection to protect against the sun’s rays.
I also tested two shirts: The Warren Polo (size large) in Jet Black and the new Markus Polo (large) in light blue, which sell for $65 apiece. The shirts, as with all of Oakley’s golf polos, have an anti-bacterial material designed to battle odor from microbes. That means the shirts will smell good even when you don’t.
I usually opt for 34-length pants, but the 32’s were plenty long. As for the 32-inch waist, it was slightly slimmer than what I’m used to in that size. That makes sense, since the pants suit an athletic or trim build. If you’re between two waist sizes, go bigger. If you’re between two lengths, go shorter.
The pants are made from 87 percent Polyester and 13 percent Spandex, so the texture isn’t cotton-soft, but it is comfortable and seriously flexible. The Take 3.0’s are great for on-course wear because they stretch enough during the swing and when bending over to tee up the ball or pick up the ball from the hole. They’re also very breathable and light, making them great for hot weather when sweat is unavoidable.
The light material doesn’t provide much warmth in cold climates, so winter warriors may want to wear a layer underneath. Also, nothing grinds my gears more than golf pants with no back pockets, or front pockets that aren’t deep enough. These pants have spacious front and back pockets with more than enough storage for golf balls, tees, gloves, quarters, scorecards, yardage books or whatever else you need to carry with you.
The Warren Polo, made with 91 percent Polyester and 9 percent Spandex, was expectedly stretchy and slightly loose-fitting. Since golfers tend to tuck in their shirts, having a little stretch works well throughout the swing so there isn’t too much resistance and the shirt stays tucked in. I found that the shirt allowed me to make a full turn and I didn’t feel any tug as I twisted.
The Markus Polo, made from all polyester, had a tighter fit with shorter sleeves, which I found to hug my body more. The material was slightly stiffer than the Warren, probably due to the Markus’ lack of spandex. This didn’t cause any problem, but it behaved like a normal polyester golf shirt. I also liked the shirt’s side vents, which gave me some sweat relief. I’d go with the bigger size if you’re between two options.
Neither shirt was terribly soft, but both were light and comfortable. The Warren Polo will appeal to golfers looking for more stretch, while the Markus Polo will appease those looking for a slimmer fit.
Look and Style
The Take 3.0 pants really suit the look that I go for on a golf course: a blend between classy and athletic. I’ve never owned a pair of pants with slits in the bottom, but I find them to allow the pants to hang comfortably without bunching near the tops of my shoes. It’s my understanding that slits are not for everyone’s taste, but those who enjoy them will be quite pleased.
The Take 3.0 comes in five different color options (Jet Black, Navy Blue, Stone Gray, White and Wood Gray), so matching with any golf shirt within Oakley’s golf line is no problem. If you find that the pants fit your build, I’d suggest a pair or two. They’ve got a “cool factor” you don’t often see from golf pants, with subtle designs that put them over the top.
The Ellipse logo seen on the front left pocket adds name recognition and a spark to the overall design. Also, if the small things in life matter — which for a review like this they certainly do — then I have to mention the awesome front button above the zipper. It’s round and heavy with a rustic metal look, branded with the company name. As far as buttons go, it’s a really nice touch.
Take a quick browse through Oakley’s line of golf apparel and you’ll notice a wide variety of styles and designs, each with different color options. If you can’t find something you like, then the website probably hasn’t fully loaded.
Personally, my favorite design combination was the Warren Polo that had black, gray and white stripes, which I wore with the White Take 3.0’s, a white hat, black belt and black shoes. I looked pretty official, I say humbly.
The Markus Polo had a futuristic design pattern, which creatively combined blue and white sphere shapes to look like stripes. I wore that with the Stone Gray Take 3.0’s, also with a black belt and black shoes. Both outfits looked great, so picking one out truly depends on preference.
If you’re looking for options to complete your outfit, Oakley also has a slew of accessories including belt buckles, belt straps, hats, shoes and watches in its golf line.
The Oakley golf line provides high-quality, high-performing shirts and pants that can be mixed and matched to develop endless outfit options. The slim fit of the pants aren’t for all builds, but they’re seriously flexible and will work well for golfers with trim or athletic builds. They’ll keep you dry in the heat, but won’t offer much warmth in the cold. At any temperature, they still look great.
The shirts are also tremendously flexible, and you can assuredly find multiple designs that suit your liking. At $65 dollars a shirt and $75 dollars per pair of pants, the price is fair for the level of quality and performance.
[wrx_buy_now oemlink=”http://www.oakley.com/en/collections/mens-golf” oemtext=”Learn more from Oakley Golf” amazonlink=”http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00BM8LVOI/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B00BM8LVOI&linkCode=as2&tag=golfwrxcom-20&linkId=WHZJURS265BI5C4Q”]
I tried the great Golfboarding experiment… here’s how it went
Corica Park Golf Course is not exactly the first place you’d expect to find one of the most experimental sports movements sweeping the nation. Sitting on a pristine swath of land along the southern rim of Alameda Island, deep in the heart of the San Francisco Bay, the course’s municipal roots and no-frills clubhouse give it an unpretentious air that seems to fit better with Sam Snead’s style of play than, say, Rickie Fowler’s.
Yet here I am, one perfectly sunny morning on a recent Saturday in December planning to try something that is about as unconventional as it gets for a 90-year-old golf course.
It’s called Golfboarding, and it’s pretty much exactly what it sounds like: an amalgam of golf and skateboarding, or maybe surfing. The brainchild of surfing legend Laird Hamilton — who can be assumed to have mastered, and has clearly grown bored of, all normal sports — Golfboarding is catching on at courses throughout the country, from local municipal courses like Corica Park to luxury country clubs like Cog Hill and TPC Las Colinas. Since winning Innovation Of the Year at the PGA Merchandising Show in 2014, Golfboards can now be found at 250 courses and have powered nearly a million rounds of golf already. Corica Park currently owns eight of them.
The man in pro shop gets a twinkle in his eyes when our foursome tells him we’d like to take them out. “Have you ridden them before?” he asks. When we admit that we are uninitiated, he grins and tells us we’re in for a treat.
But first, we need to sign a waiver and watch a seven-minute instructional video. A slow, lawyerly voice reads off pedantic warnings like “Stepping on the golfboard should be done slowly and carefully” and “Always hold onto the handlebars when the board is in motion.” When it cautions us to “operate the board a safe distance from all…other golfboarders,” we exchange glances, knowing that one of us will more than likely break this rule later on.
Then we venture outside, where one of the clubhouse attendants shows us the ropes. The controls are pretty simple. One switch sends it forward or in reverse, another toggles between low and high gear. To make it go, there’s a throttle on the thumb of the handle. The attendant explains that the only thing we have to worry about is our clubs banging against our knuckles.
“Don’t be afraid to really lean into the turns,” he offers. “You pretty much can’t roll it over.”
“That sounds like a challenge,” I joke. No one laughs.
On a test spin through the parking lot, the Golfboard feels strong and sturdy, even when I shift around on it. It starts and stops smoothly with only the slightest of jerks. In low gear its top speed is about 5 mph, so even at full throttle it never feels out of control.
The only challenge, as far as I can tell, is getting it to turn. For some reason, I’d expected the handlebar to offer at least some degree of steering, but it is purely for balance. The thing has the Ackerman angle of a Mack Truck, and you really do have to lean into the turns to get it to respond. For someone who is not particularly adept at either surfing or skateboarding, this comes a little unnaturally. I have to do a number of three-point turns in order to get back to where I started and make my way over to the first tee box.
We tee off and climb on. The fairway is flat and wide, and we shift into high gear as we speed off toward our balls. The engine had produced just the faintest of whirrs as it accelerated, but it is practically soundless as the board rolls along at full speed. The motor nevertheless feels surprisingly powerful under my feet (the drivetrain is literally located directly underneath the deck) as the board maintains a smooth, steady pace of 10 mph — about the same as a golf cart. I try making a couple of S curves like I’d seen in the video and realize that high-speed turning will take a little practice for me to get right, but that it doesn’t seem overly difficult.
Indeed, within a few holes I might as well be Laird himself, “surfing the earth” from shot to shot. I am able to hold the handlebar and lean way out, getting the board to turn, if not quite sharply, then at least closer to that of a large moving van than a full-sized semi. I take the hills aggressively (although the automatic speed control on the drivetrain enables it to keep a steady pace both up and down any hills, so this isn’t exactly dangerous), and I speed throughout the course like Mario Andretti on the freeway (the company claims increased pace-of-play as one of the Golfboard’s primary benefits, but on a Saturday in the Bay Area, it is impossible avoid a five-hour round anyway.)
Gliding along, my feet a few inches above the grass, the wind in my face as the fairways unfurl below my feet, it is easy to see Golfboards as the next evolution in mankind’s mastery of wheels; the same instincts to overcome inertia that brought us bicycles, rollerblades, scooters, skateboards, and more recent inventions such as Segways, Hoverboards and Onewheels are clearly manifest in Golfboards as well. They might not offer quite the same thrill as storming down a snowy mountainside or catching a giant wave, but they are definitely more fun than your standard golf cart.
Yet, there are obvious downsides as well. The attendant’s warning notwithstanding, my knuckles are in fact battered and sore by the time we make the turn, and even though I rearrange all my clubs into the front slots of my bag, they still rap my knuckles every time I hit a bump. Speaking of which, the board’s shock absorber system leaves something to be desired, as the ride is so bumpy that near the end I start to feel as if I’ve had my insides rattled. Then there is the unforgivable fact of its missing a cup holder for my beer.
But these are mere design flaws that might easily be fixed in the next generation of Golfboards. (A knuckle shield is a must!) My larger problem with Golfboards is what they do to the game itself. When walking or riding a traditional cart, the moments in between shots are a time to plan your next shot, or to chat about your last shot, or to simply find your zen out there among the trees and the birds and the spaciousness of the course. Instead, my focus is on staying upright.
Down the stretch, I start to fade. The muscles in my core have endured a pretty serious workout, and it’s becoming increasingly difficult to muster the strength for my golf swing. It is no coincidence that my game starts to unravel, and I am on the way to one of my worst rounds in recent memory.
Walking off the 18th green, our foursome agrees that the Golfboards were fun — definitely worth trying — but that we probably wouldn’t ride them again. Call me a purist, but as someone lacking Laird Hamilton’s physical gifts, I’m happy to stick to just one sport at a time.
Review: The QOD Electric Caddy
If you want an electric golf caddy that doesn’t require that you wear a sensor or carry a remote — one that will be reliable and allow you to focus on your game, and not your cart — then the Australian-manufactured QOD is worth checking out.
The QOD (an acronym for Quality of Design and a nod to its four wheels) is powered by a 14.4-volt lithium battery, good for 36 holes or more on a single charge. It has nine different speeds (with the fastest settings moving closer to jogging velocity) so the QOD can handle your ideal pace, whether that be a casual stroll or a more rapid clip around the course.
The QOD is also built to last. Its injection-molded, aircraft-grade aluminum frame has no welded joints. Steel bolts and locking teeth take care of the hinging points. The battery and frame are both guaranteed for three full years. If you need a new battery after the three-year window, the folks at QOD will replace it at cost.
Its front-wheel suspension gives the QOD a smooth ride down the fairway, and the trolley is easy to navigate with a gentle nudge here and there. The QOD is always in free-wheel mode, so it is smooth and easy to maneuver manually in tight spaces and around the green.
The caddy also features three timed interval modes for situations where you might wish to send it up ahead on its own: when helping a friend find a lost ball or when you will be exiting on the far side of the green after putting, for example. The clip below includes a look at the caddy in timed mode.
Another area where the QOD excels is in its small size and portability. When folded, it measures a mere 17-inches wide, 15-inches deep and 12-inches tall, making it the smallest electric caddy on the market.
Folks Down Under have been enjoying the QOD for some time, but it wasn’t until a few years ago when Malachi McGlone was looking for a way to continue walking the course without putting undue strain on an injured wrist that the QOD found U.S. fairways. After first becoming a satisfied customer, McGlone convinced CEO Collin Hiss, who developed the product and oversees its production in Australia, to allow him to distribute and service the QOD here in the states.
The QOD has no self-balancing gyroscope, bluetooth sensor or remote control. Bells and whistles just aren’t its thing — though it does have a USB port for cell phone charging that can come in handy. However, if you are looking for a no-fuss workhorse to move your bag down the fairway, the QOD should be on your radar.
The 2018 model has begun shipping and will be on sale at $1,299 for a limited time. It normally retails at $1,499.
Review: FlightScope Mevo
In 100 Words
The Mevo is a useful practice tool for amateur golfers and represents a step forward from previous offerings on the market. It allows golfers to practice indoors or outdoors and provides club speed, ball speed, smash factor, launch angle, spin rate, carry distance and flight time.
It also has a video capture mode that will overlay swing videos with the swing data of a specific swing. It is limited in its capabilities and its accuracy, though, which golfers should expect at this price point. All in all, it’s well worth the $499 price tag if you understand what you’re getting.
The Full Review
The FlightScope Mevo is a launch monitor powered by 3D Doppler radar. With a retail price of $499, it is obviously aimed to reach the end consumer as opposed to PGA professionals and club fitters.
The Mevo device itself is tiny. Like, really tiny. It measures 3.5-inches wide, 2.8-inches tall and 1.2-inches deep. In terms of everyday products, it’s roughly the size of an Altoids tin. It’s very easy to find room for it in your golf bag, and the vast majority of people at the range you may be practicing at won’t even notice it’s there. Apart from the Mevo itself, in the box you get a quick start guide, a charging cable, a carrying pouch, and some metallic stickers… more on those later. It has a rechargeable internal battery that reaches a full charge in about two hours and lasts for about four hours when fully charged.
As far as software goes, the Mevo pairs with the Mevo Golf app on your iOS or Android device. The app is free to download and does not require any subscription fees (unless you want to store and view videos of your swing online as opposed to using the memory on your device). The app is very easy to use even for those who aren’t tech savvy. Make sure you’re using the most current version of the firmware for the best results, though (I did experience some glitches at first until I did so). The settings menu does have an option to manually force firmware writing, but updates should happen automatically when you start using the device.
Moving through the menus, beginning sessions, editing shots (good for adding notes on things like strike location or wind) are all very easy. Video mode did give me fits the first time I used it, though, as it was impossible to maintain my connection between my phone and the Mevo while having the phone in the right location to capture video properly. The only way I could achieve this was by setting the Mevo as far back from strike location as the device would allow. Just something to keep in mind if you find you’re having troubles with video mode.
Using the Mevo
When setting up the Mevo, it needs to be placed between 4-7 feet behind the golf ball, level with the playing surface and pointed down the target line. The distance you place the Mevo behind the ball does need to be entered into the settings menu before starting your session. While we’re on that subject, before hitting balls, you do need to select between indoor, outdoor, and pitching (ball flight less than 20 yards) modes, input your altitude and select video or data mode depending on if you want to pair your data with videos of each swing or just see the data by itself. You can also edit the available clubs to be monitored, as you will have to tell the Mevo which club you’re using at any point in time to get the best results. Once you get that far, you’re pretty much off to the races.
Testing the Mevo
I tested the FlightScope Mevo with Brad Bachand at Man O’ War Golf Center in Lexington, Kentucky. Brad is a member of the PGA and has received numerous awards for golf instruction and club fitting. I wanted to put the Mevo against the best device FlightScope has to offer and, luckily, Brad does use his $15,000 FlightScope X3 daily. We had both the FlightScope Mevo and Brad’s FlightScope X3 set up simultaneously, so the numbers gathered from the two devices were generated from the exact same strikes. Brad also set up the two devices and did all of the ball striking just to maximize our chances for success.
The day of our outdoor session was roughly 22 degrees Fahrenheit. There was some wind on that day (mostly right to left), but it wasn’t a major factor. Our setup is pictured below.
The results of our outdoor testing are shown below. The testing was conducted with range balls, and we did use the metallic stickers. The range balls used across all the testing were all consistently the same brand. Man O’ War buys all new range balls once a year and these had been used all throughout 2017. The 2018 batch had not yet been purchased at the time that testing was conducted.
You’ll notice some peculiar data in the sand wedge spin category. To be honest, I don’t fully know what contributed to the X3 measuring such low values. While the Mevo’s sand wedge spin numbers seem more believable, you could visibly see that the X3 was much more accurate on carry distance. Below is a quick summary of the percent differences between each of the parameters as presented by the Mevo and the X3 in our outdoor session when separated out for each club. As previously mentioned, though, take sand wedge spin with a grain of salt.
The first thing we noticed was that the Mevo displays its numbers while the golf ball is still in midair, so it was clear that it wasn’t watching the golf ball the entire time like the X3. According to the Mevo website, carry distance, height and flight time are all calculated while club speed, ball speed, launch angle and spin rate are measured. As for the accuracy of the measured parameters, the Mevo’s strength is ball speed. The accuracy of the other measured ball parameters (launch angle and spin rate) is questionable depending on certain factors (quality of strike, moisture on the clubface and ball, quality of ball, etc). I would say it ranges between “good” or “very good” and “disappointing” with most strikes being categorized as “just okay.”
As for the calculated parameters of carry distance, height and time, those vary a decent amount. Obviously, when the measurements of the three inputs become less accurate, the three outputs will become less accurate as a result. Furthermore, according to FlightScope, the Mevo’s calculations are not accounting for things like temperature, humidity, and wind. The company has also stated, though, that future updates will likely adjust for these parameters by using location services through the app.
Now, let’s talk about those metallic stickers. According to the quick start guide, the Mevo needs a sticker on every golf ball you hit, and before you hit each ball, the ball needs to be placed such that the sticker is facing the target. It goes without saying that it doesn’t sound like a whole lot of fun to spend time putting those stickers on every ball, let alone balls that will never come back to you if you’re at a public driving range. Obviously, people are going to want to avoid using the stickers if they can, so do they really matter? Below is a table of data showing the percent difference between the Mevo’s data and the X3’s data of what we collected outdoors with a driver and range balls with and without the use of the stickers.
The FlightScope website says that the metallic stickers “are needed in order for the Mevo to accurately measure ball spin.” We observed pretty much the same as shown in the table above. The website also states they are working on alternative solutions to stickers (possibly a metallic sharpie), which I think is wise.
Another thing we thought would be worth testing is the impact of different golf balls. Below is a table of data showing the percent difference between the Mevo’s data and the X3’s data of what we collected outdoors with a driver and range balls as compared to Pro V1’s. All of this data was collected using the metallic stickers.
As shown above, the data gets much closer virtually across the board when you use better quality golf balls. Just something else to keep in mind when using the Mevo.
Indoor testing requires 8 feet of ball flight (impact zone to hitting net), which was no problem for us. Our setup is pictured below. All of the indoor testing was conducted with Titleist Pro V1 golf balls using the metallic stickers.
The results of our indoor session are shown below.
Below is a quick summary of the percent differences between each of the parameters as presented by the Mevo and the X3 in our indoor session when separated out for each club.
On the whole, the data got much closer together between the two devices in our indoor session. I would think a lot of that can be attributed to the use of quality golf balls and to removing outdoor factors like wind and temperature (tying into my previous comment above).
As far as overall observations between all sessions, the most striking thing was that the Mevo consistently gets more accurate when you hit really good, straight shots. When you hit bad shots, or if you hit a fade or a draw, it gets less and less accurate.
The last parameter to address is club speed, which came in around 5 percent different on average between the Mevo and X3 based on all of the shots recorded. The Mevo was most accurate with the driver at 2.1 percent different from the X3 over all strikes and it was the least accurate with sand wedge by far. Obviously, smash factor accuracy will follow club speed for the most part since ball speed is quite accurate. Over every shot we observed, the percent difference on ball speed was 1.2 percent on average between the Mevo and the X3. Again, the Mevo was least accurate with sand wedges. If I remove all sand wedge shots from the data, the average percent difference changes from 1.2 percent to 0.7 percent, which is very, very respectable.
When it comes to the different clubs used, the Mevo was by far most accurate with mid irons. I confirmed this with on-course testing on a relatively flat 170-yard par-3 as well. Carry distances in that case were within 1-2 yards on most shots (mostly related to quality of strike). With the driver, the Mevo was reasonably close, but I would also describe it as generous. It almost always missed by telling me that launch angle was higher, spin rate was lower and carry distance was farther than the X3. Generally speaking, the Mevo overestimated our driver carries by about 5 percent. Lastly, the Mevo really did not like sand wedges at all. Especially considering those shots were short enough that you could visibly see how far off the Mevo was with its carry distance. Being 10 yards off on a 90 yard shot was disappointing.
The Mevo is a really good product if you understand what you’re getting when you buy it. Although the data isn’t good enough for a PGA professional, it’s still a useful tool that gives amateurs reasonable feedback while practicing. It’s also a fair amount more accurate than similar products in its price range, and I think it could become even better with firmware updates as Flightscope improves upon its product.
This is a much welcomed and very promising step forward in consumer launch monitors, and the Mevo is definitely worth a look if you’re in the market for one.
Non-competing marker Jeff Knox’s WITB: The 2018 Masters
Tiger Woods WITB 2018 (New TaylorMade TW-Phase1 irons)
The story behind Jason Dufner’s new National Custom Works irons
How many Greens in Regulation should you be hitting based on your handicap?
Tiger Woods’ backup Scotty Cameron putter just sold for $44 grand
12 reasons serious golfers don’t realize their potential
Gear Dive: Legendary club builder Larry Bobka speaks on Tiger’s old Titleist irons
20 signs you’re a victim of style-based golf instruction
Titleist AVX golf balls passed the test, are now available across the United States
Satoshi Kodaira’s Winning WITB: 2018 RBC Heritage
Barstool Sports founder shot a 66 (of sorts) at Shinnecock, our Swing Analysis
Dave Portnoy, Barstool Sports’ founder, just brought upcoming U.S. Open venue Shinnecock to its knees…kind of. How did El Pres...
Bryson DeChambeau went full Golf Scientist in professing his love for “The Golfing Machine”
Published more than 30 years ago, Homer Kelley’s “The Golfing Machine” remains a golf swing bible for some, far too...
The Florida Mid-Am final ended with a player getting punched in the face. Or did it?
On paper–that is the Florida State Golf Association’s paper, not the police report–Marc Dull won the Florida Mid-Am when his...
Ricky Barnes DQd at the Byron Nelson
Ricky Barnes took a trip to Dairy Queen at the AT&T Byron Nelson. Barnes was disqualified following his second round...
Equipment1 week ago
The story behind Jason Dufner’s new National Custom Works irons
Opinion & Analysis3 weeks ago
How many Greens in Regulation should you be hitting based on your handicap?
pga tour2 weeks ago
Jason Day’s Winning WITB: 2018 Wells Fargo Championship
pga tour2 days ago
Aaron Wise’s Winning WITB: 2018 AT&T Byron Nelson (updated 5/22 with photos)
pga tour1 week ago
Webb Simpson’s Winning WITB: The 2018 Players Championship
19th Hole2 weeks ago
Tiger Woods explains the origin of his famed stinger
Instruction3 weeks ago
Right Arm Bend: The Difference Between PGA Tour Pros and Amateurs
Tour News2 weeks ago
MUST WATCH: Tiger Woods unleashes incredible stinger (with Toptracer) on the 18th hole at The Players