$90 Replacement Oakley Lenses

[SloverUT]

Originally Posted by MS256

I realize I'm in the minority these days but I'm totally unimpressed by somebody driving a Ferrari (or anything else), and I wouldn't even care enough to notice the difference if somebody had expensive sunglasses or not.

The most rich and famous guy in this area was driving an old pickup truck the last time I saw him (my kind of guy). Fits right in around here.

That said, since I do realize I'm in the minority, I don't blame someone at all for buying expensive things to put themselves in the best possible public light, especially if they make their living based off of public perception of them.

P.S. My kids never quite shared my views either...Always talking my wife into getting them a pair of shoes where half of the price was the name brand alone.

I am of the same mindset.  I don't care if you drive a Ferrari or a Ford Ranger.  And I don't care if you are wearing Oakley's or local Wal-mart sunglasses.  The only thing that has ever mattered to me is a person's character.  Besides, I've known so many people who spend all their money trying to look impressive to no end.

[Dave2512]

Originally Posted by Righty to Lefty

Tifosi makes excellent sunglasses for the same price.

Yep, Tifosi is where it's at. I've bought Tifosi from outlets on ebay for as low as $19.99 and some come with 3 sets of lenses. The Mast is my favorite but I have several different models. Their polarized fototec golf/tennis lens is perfect for sunny days. I use their fototec light night lens on cloudy days, goes from nearly transparent to medium dark. Actually wear those at night to drive.

[BostonBrew]

I think you're selling quality items short and classifying them for purely vanity reasons. Does a Ferrari cost a hell of a lot because of the Prancing Horse on the badge? Absolutely. But it also costs a lot because of the quality and performance of the vehicle. I know the argument here is, but it only gets you from Point A to Point B. And yes, yes it does. But the Ferrari does it in a way the Ford doesn't.

Same goes for sunglasses. There is a lot to the quality of higher ends glasses. And I think wanting to protect your eyes with quality sunglasses is definitely a justifiable reason. My father lost an eye to ocular cancer. I'd like to avoid having that happen to me. So I'm willing to spend a larger amount of money on quality sunglasses.

[Lihu]

My Oakley lenses are scratched, so I decided to buy some replacements.......... $90......for polarized replacement lenses.  Sheeesh....I thought that was high, but it beats buying a new pair from scratch....

The funny thing is that replacing the frame on Oakley's is free, and with Raybans replacing the lens are free. Of course, on the Oakley's the lens cracked easily, and the frame wears out on the Raybans. Now, I just buy whatever Costco sells. Usually, these are the same level of quality for about $70 down to $40 a pair.

[tristanhilton85]

I really like some of the Oakley stuff but haven't got myself to spend that kind of money on a pair... yet.

Right now I have a pari from Tifosi which I really like a lot. I use them while I golf, off the course I have a pair of Ray-Bans.

[Phil McGleno]

Not true at all Mr. Hard-on-for-Forged-Mizuno-Clubs-Only. [quote name="GaijinGolfer" url="/t/68253/total-bs#post_864890"]Way to try to justify a vanity purchase.[/quote] They see Oakleys on PGA Tour pros and expect that I should look as professional as possible so part of that is having properly fitting appropriate clothes that fit me well are clean and ironed and so on. It is about apperances as much as anything especially early on. I do not wear shorts and I do not wear cheap shoes and they are polished, and I do not wear crappy sunglasses. If I get one lesson more because Im wearing Oakleys then theyve paid for themselves. People are vain. [quote name="AmazingWhacker" url="/t/68253/total-bs#post_864892"]How exactly do people "respond" to your sunglasses? I'm struggling to imagine ...do they ooh and ahh? Applaud? Bow in reverence? Check thier hair and make up in the mirrored lenses? How does somebody respond to sunglasses? I have an idea of what my response would be-but I doubt that's what you're going for[/quote] Yes that is about it. [quote name="BostonBrew" url="/t/68253/total-bs#post_864894"]I think he meant that it gives a certain appearance, like anything really. People often form their first impressions of others based on what they're wearing, driving, drinking, etc. If I meet a guy and he's got keys for a Ferrari, my impression will be slightly different than if the keys were to a Toyota. Same for sunglasses. [/quote] You are probably unaware of your subtle biases and perceptions but that does not mean they do not exist. [quote name="MS256" url="/t/68253/total-bs#post_864901"]I realize I'm in the minority these days but I'm totally unimpressed by somebody driving a Ferrari (or anything else), and I wouldn't even care enough to notice the difference if somebody had expensive sunglasses or not.[/quote] Ditto you probably judge you just dont recognize that you do. You cant know someones character when youre considering taking a lesson from them. Things that you can see will help you decide whether to take a lesson or not. [quote name="SloverUT" url="/t/68253/total-bs/18#post_864903"]I am of the same mindset.  I don't care if you drive a Ferrari or a Ford Ranger.  And I don't care if you are wearing Oakley's or local Wal-mart sunglasses.  The only thing that has ever mattered to me is a person's character.[/quote]

[newtogolf]

I have always worn Oakley while running marathons or cycling as they provide excellent eye protection, anti-fog lenses, light weight frames and nice styles.  I now have a pair for golf, Flak Jackets with the G30 lenses.

[BostonBrew]

I think this thread needs to be renamed haha.

[MS256]

Originally Posted by Phil McGleno

Ditto you probably judge you just dont recognize that you do. You cant know someones character when youre considering taking a lesson from them. Things that you can see will help you decide whether to take a lesson or not.

Ha ha! I understand what you are saying and I don't blame you a bit. If my wife or son was going to take a lesson from you they would certainly know what kind of sunglasses you had on, and probably what kinds of shirt, pants, and shoes.

As for me: I have no idea what kind of sunglasses my son wears every single time we play (but knowing him they are not cheap) and I have no idea what kind of sunglasses my wife wears (but knowing her they are not cheap) and I certainly wouldn't notice what kind anybody else had on (and wouldn't even know the difference). I just pay no attention to those things.

[bubble]

you all play with polarised shades ?

feels to strange for me for sports.; cant read greens with standard shades either.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by bubble

cant read greens with standard shades either.

Your eyes aren't very good at reading greens as it is. Use your feet. Learn AimPoint.

[David in FL]

you all play with polarised shades ? feels to strange for me for sports.; cant read greens with standard shades either.

I use non-polarized glasses for golf. Same reason. I may take an Aimpoint class some day, but I imagine that there's still some benefit to being able to see as well as feel slope and grain......

[iacas]

Originally Posted by David in FL

I may take an Aimpoint class some day, but I imagine that there's still some benefit to being able to see as well as feel slope and grain......

I was a good green reader before AimPoint and I used polarized lenses. If anything, I think taking a little glare off helped. Glare is not good. Glare obscures subtle differences in shading, color, etc. It reduces contrast.

[David in FL]

I was a good green reader before AimPoint and I used polarized lenses. If anything, I think taking a little glare off helped. Glare is not good. Glare obscures subtle differences in shading, color, etc. It reduces contrast. [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/78694/] [/URL][URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/78695/] [/URL][URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/78696/] [/URL]

I wear polarized lenses for everything but golf. Driving, cycling, fishing, flying..... But for some reason I seem to miss subtleties on the green with them. Of course, like a lot of things, it could be entirely in my head too..... :-)

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by David in FL

I use non-polarized glasses for golf. Same reason.

I may take an Aimpoint class some day, but I imagine that there's still some benefit to being able to see as well as feel slope and grain......

There is no benefit to seeing the slope.  Grain?  I have no idea.  I know nothing about grain.  You could always do like the people on TV and take your shades off around the greens.

I am starting to get a lot better at reading the greens with Aimpoint lately and the thing about it is that you cannot be tricked, whereas your eyes can absolutely trick you.  Good course designers build stuff in on purpose to trick your eyes.  So only two things can happen:

1.  Your read with aimpoint and your read with your eyes is the same.

2.  Your read with aimpoint and your read with your eyes is not the same.

Obviously, with #1, you didn't need to see anything because you got the exact same read either way.  And with #2, your choices are to go with your feet, which cannot play tricks on you, or your eyes, which absolutely can play tricks on you.  There is only one answer there ... go with your feet.

[MS256]

Originally Posted by David in FL

I wear polarized lenses for everything but golf. Driving, cycling, fishing, flying..... But for some reason I seem to miss subtleties on the green with them. Of course, like a lot of things, it could be entirely in my head too.....

I don't know if I go mostly by sight, feel, a combination, or something else when reading putts.

I think I'm a fairly decent green reader but I do miss too many putts on the high side. I don't think that has anything to do with my read as much as a combination of a lack of common sense about it and the fact that I absolutely HATE to miss a putt on the low side.

I wear prescription photo gray lenses for near-sightedness but sometimes play without glasses at all (I can see well enough far off on sunny days to see where my tee shots end up). Doesn't seem like I read greens any better or any worse with or without glasses.

I do roll the ball much better than average so if I have the read right I am seldom going to miss the putt.

[David in FL]

There is no benefit to seeing the slope.  Grain?  I have no idea.  I know nothing about grain.  You could always do like the people on TV and take your shades off around the greens. [SPOILER=Off Topic Aimpoint Stuff] I am starting to get a lot better at reading the greens with Aimpoint lately and the thing about it is that you cannot be tricked, whereas your eyes can absolutely trick you.  Good course designers build stuff in on purpose to trick your eyes.  So only two things can happen: 1.  Your read with aimpoint and your read with your eyes is the same. 2.  Your read with aimpoint and your read with your eyes is not the same. Obviously, with #1, you didn't need to see anything because you got the exact same read either way.  And with #2, your choices are to go with your feet, which cannot play tricks on you, or your eyes, which absolutely can play tricks on you.  There is only one answer there ... go with your feet. [/SPOILER]

For those of us (vast majority?) that do not use Aimpoint, I'd offer that it's mandatory to be able to "see" slope. Being able to see grain (for those of us who play a lot of Bermuda, also helps distinguish subtle slopes..... I'll bet you still use your eyes more than you think....even with Aimpoint.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by David in FL

For those of us (vast majority?) that do not use Aimpoint, I'd offer that it's mandatory to be able to "see" slope. Being able to see grain (for those of us who play a lot of Bermuda, also helps distinguish subtle slopes.....

I'll bet you still use your eyes more than you think....even with Aimpoint.

Yes, I should have been a little more specific.  I'm only responding to your comment which implied that if you were to ever take a class, that you'd still want to see the slope even while using aimpoint.  For those who don't use aimpoint (certainly still the vast majority of golfers in the world), I would totally agree that most probably use their eyes a lot more than their feet.  In fact, until I took my class, I only used my eyes.  I had never thought to use my feet at all.

(I didn't bother to hide this post because I realize that it's not really OT, seeing as how the topic is simply "total BS" ;))