shafts

Why should SuperSpeed get 3x of Stack's profits? I get the part about SuperSpeed wanting damages sustained as a result of Stack, but I don't get why SuperSpeed feels that they're entitled to both Stack's profits and damages.   Does anyone know/think SuperSpeed actually has a case here?

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/603d222df4a6a57df7ef3e29/t/663cdba5d89e3a1848dab8d1/1715264422455/US_DIS_ILND_1_24cv3749_d34676497e293_COMPLAINT_filed_by_SuperSpeed_Golf_LLC_Jury_Demand.pdf The full complaint is there, but  basically, SuperSpeed (SS*) is claiming the Stack System (SS*) Stack System’s [sic] produces inflated metrics later used to, [sic] mislead and deceive consumers. Stack System’s marketing materials inflate apparent swing speed and distance gains through selective presentment of data without qualification that purported gains are not the result, in whole or part, of its training protocol and products. * Yes, I'm joking about abbreviating both "SS." SuperSpeed wants: A judgment that the Stack System has disseminated false and/or misleading information in violation of federal and Illinois law. The deletion of all false advertising distributed and recall of all packaging containing false advertising and a requirement that Stack System issue notices (written or otherwise) to that effect to all current distributors and retailers of its products and all distributors with whom Stack System has done business in the past eighteen months. Written confirmation within 30 days of an injunction detailing the manner and form in which Stack System has complied. An order that Stack System disseminate corrective advertising informing consumers, the trade, and the public of Stack System’s unlawful conduct. 3X all profits received by Stack System as a result of its unlawful actions. 3X all damages sustained by SuperSpeed (as a result of Stack System’s actions) The cost of the action All reasonable attorney fees All other relief to which SuperSpeed are entitled and such other or additional relief as just and proper. Oy.

I'm not doing this for the hundred and twentieth time. Sorry in advance, but you get the massively abridged version. Those guys also benefited from the weaker/shallower fields. Also, Watson's career doesn't overlap with Jack's like many think it did. Tom is nearly a decade younger. Jack won only like four majors only after Tom won his first. And Tom won more British Opens than he did all three of the other majors combined, as it was his specialty (not Jack's). Arnie's career similarly doesn't overlap Jack's as much as many think.   Jack would also tell you Tiger was the better golfer.

Weaker depth of fields for sure. Some of the top level guys with Jack were pretty awesome. Tom Watson had the lead on the 72nd hole of the 2009 British Open, an event where Tiger missed the cut. Old Tom was almost 60 years old. Jack himself at age 58 finished Top 10 at The 1998 Masters and scored better than Tiger, who won The Masters by 12 shots just a year before that.   The success of both Tom & Jack in older age gives some hope that maybe Tiger can find the magic again at some point. He’s still trying to figure out how to build the stamina for 72 holes after the leg injury. I would love to see him jump on the leaderboard in the coming years. I know a lot of people have given up on him at this point, but that was also true from 2014 to 2017 with the back injuries. He had a hell of a resurgence in 2018 & 2019. Would be fun to see it again. 

Perceptive rules question by caddie unlocks Tour pro’s ‘dead zone’ relief A perceptive rules question by Xander Schauffele’s caddie, Austin Kaiser, unlocked “dead zone” relief during the Wells Fargo Championship.