or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by dkolo

Yeah, the locker room thing isn't an issue. Which sports division they should compete in is a tough question though. I recall coming across studies that showed male to female trans people had negligible physical advantages once hormone therapies concluded but I'm sure it's early in that research. Also what constitutes a full hormonal transition isn't a standardized thing. So it's something that'll require a lot of further study to be able to create objective criteria for....
Any new wedge will have great spin properties just because of fresh grooves. Some higher end wedges will gain you marginally more but their bigger advantages are in things like forgiveness, etc. at your handicap, there's a decent chance lack of spin around greens is a technique issue.Anyway, I just bought a Cleveland CG15 for $62 on Amazon as a gift and it's been well received. I tried it myself as well and it's all one can ask for. Love the black finish too.
Calling it a shaky theory at this point is blithely misrepresenting the truth of the matter.
Probably just instinct and worrying that he screwed up not marking his ball and getting it out of the way. Like I doubt he went through the thought process of the rules and their exceptions and just thought "Hey let me see what's over there... oh sh---!"
Their whole pricing strategy, in light of the free app which I use every time I golf, is kinda baffling.
What are you being sponsored for? College athletes can't be sponsored and you can't even sniff a pro tour unless you're a plus handicap. Unless you get to be a teaching pro with a brand alliance, you offer no benefit to a sponsor.
It's a shank if it hits the hosel. If you hit the ball off the extreme bottom of the clubface (skull it, top it, etc), that's not a shank. You should be able to identify where they hit on the clubface. Some basic idea of knowing what happened is a helpful thing to learn. I had something similar early on where I was shanking and I didn't know it because I had no experience. Learning what you did wrong is a great way to begin to self-correct. By the way, I'm going on a limb...
I don't know what to say to that. Yes, there's relatively little carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Some things in small amounts make a big difference. If you doubled the amount of blood in your body, you'd be worse for the wear. Ozone is about one part per million relative to the atmosphere and it's all that's keeping us alive from solar radiation. 
There's a lot here that is kind of neither here nor there. Yes, climate modeling is complicated but the underlying science behind it isn't. Greenhouse gases in a closed system cause temperatures in that system to rise faster than in one without it. There's significantly more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than during the pre-Industrial period. There's more of the stuff that causes the Earth to get warmer and we're adding more constantly. It's straightforward on that...
The solar cycle hypothesis was the one I believed when it was bandied about in the mid-2000s. It predicted significant cooling by now, and that hasn't been borne out. The Maunder Minimum was a particularly notable period of solar inactivity, not the term for the recurring nadir of the solar cycle.  In any event, I came across this interactive chart a few weeks ago that attempts to visualize the effects of different variables on temperatures over time. I found it...
New Posts  All Forums: