Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 3903 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted

I always shake hands.  But I never piss on my own hand either.  Maybe I'm too trusting of people's ability to not piss on themselves.


Posted
I don't think anyone is washing their hands in piss so sure.

I apologize for having a spam URL in my signature and will not do it again.


Posted
I don't think anyone is washing their hands in piss so sure.

Not hands, but maybe feet, it's supposed to cure/prevent athletes foot.

Yours in earnest, Jason.
Call me Ernest, or EJ or Ernie.

PSA - "If you find yourself in a hole, STOP DIGGING!"

My Whackin' Sticks: :cleveland: 330cc 2003 Launcher 10.5*  :tmade: RBZ HL 3w  :nickent: 3DX DC 3H, 3DX RC 4H  :callaway: X-22 5-AW  :nike:SV tour 56* SW :mizuno: MP-T11 60* LW :bridgestone: customized TD-03 putter :tmade:Penta TP3   :aimpoint:

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

I always shake hands.  But I never piss on my own hand either.  Maybe I'm too trusting of people's ability to not piss on themselves.

I think you are.   Does that change your views on shaking hands with someone who has been in and out of bushes 5 times during a round, not to find his balls mind you.   Maybe, he was looking for balls. ;-)

RiCK

(Play it again, Sam)

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
Back in the '80s, I worked as a lab chemist and as a hazardous waste tech. The standing joke went like this: Q: What's the difference between a chef and a chemist? A: Chefs wash their hands after they piss.

Posted

I always shake hands.  But I never piss on my own hand either.  Maybe I'm too trusting of people's ability to not piss on themselves.

I think in this case a fist bump may be appropriate :-P

Russ, from "sunny" Yorkshire = :-( 

In the bag: Driver: Ping G5 , Woods:Dunlop NZ9, 4 Hybrid: Tayormade Burner, 4-SW: Hippo Beast Bi-Metal , Wedges: Wilson 1200, Putter: Cleveland Smartsquare Blade, Ball: AD333

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

that's why we have immune systems ... I try not to worry about stuff like that.    Of course, before I eat, I wash my hands ...

John

Fav LT Quote ... "you can talk to a fade, but a hook won't listen"

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

I'm an old dawg. I never learned to shake.

Doesn't that get your underwear wet?

Oh, you meant shake HANDS.

:dance:

But then again, what the hell do I know?

Rich - in name only

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

This is much ado about nothing.  I'm not being rude if I don't shake someones hands.  If they think I am, that's their problem, not mine.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

Totally agree.

That hand sanitizer stuff is probably ruining people's immune systems. It's good to be hygienic but you don't need to be sterile. Some of you guys must be complete basket cases to go camping with.


LMAO


Posted

I've worked in manufacturing facilities for 35+ years. I've had more nasty stuff on my hands than I care to think about. It is not uncommon to ignore your Mama's command of "wash your hands before you eat" when you're in the middle of a breakdown and grab some food. I really don't get hung up on stuff like this.

Besides, like the old joke goes:

A Sailor and a Marine were standing side by side at the urinals. They both finish up, and the Sailor goes to the sink and washes his hands. The Marine starts to walk out the door. The Sailor calls "Hey, in the Navy they teach us to wash our hands after we pee." The Marine replied "In the Marines, they teach us not to pee on our hands."

How many times have you seen (or done yourself) someone spit on the ball and rub it to clean off the green fertilizer/insecticide from the ball on the putting green. Would you shake their hand after that?


Right on! Hell, we used to chew tar pieces from the streets in Chicago and we're all still here


Posted

I've never given this much thought.

...until now.

...great.

...

Do you inhale or exhale when you shake hands? ;-)

But then again, what the hell do I know?

Rich - in name only

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 3903 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • Nah, man. People have been testing clubs like this for decades at this point. Even 35 years. @M2R, are you AskGolfNut? If you're not, you seem to have fully bought into the cult or something. So many links to so many videos… Here's an issue, too: - A drop of 0.06 is a drop with a 90 MPH 7I having a ball speed of 117 and dropping it to 111.6, which is going to be nearly 15 yards, which is far more than what a "3% distance loss" indicates (and is even more than a 4.6% distance loss). - You're okay using a percentage with small numbers and saying "they're close" and "1.3 to 1.24 is only 4.6%," but then you excuse the massive 53% difference that going from 3% to 4.6% represents. That's a hell of an error! - That guy in the Elite video is swinging his 7I at 70 MPH. C'mon. My 5' tall daughter swings hers faster than that.
    • Yea but that is sort of my quandary, I sometimes see posts where people causally say this club is more forgiving, a little more forgiving, less forgiving, ad nauseum. But what the heck are they really quantifying? The proclamation of something as fact is not authoritative, even less so as I don't know what the basis for that statement is. For my entire golfing experience, I thought of forgiveness as how much distance front to back is lost hitting the face in non-optimal locations. Anything right or left is on me and delivery issues. But I also have to clarify that my experience is only with irons, I never got to the point of having any confidence or consistency with anything longer. I feel that is rather the point, as much as possible, to quantify the losses by trying to eliminate all the variables except the one you want to investigate. Or, I feel like we agree. Compared to the variables introduced by a golfer's delivery and the variables introduced by lie conditions, the losses from missing the optimal strike location might be so small as to almost be noise over a larger area than a pea.  In which case it seems that your objection is that the 0-3% area is being depicted as too large. Which I will address below. For statements that is absurd and true 100% sweet spot is tiny for all clubs. You will need to provide some objective data to back that up and also define what true 100% sweet spot is. If you mean the area where there are 0 losses, then yes. While true, I do not feel like a not practical or useful definition for what I would like to know. For strikes on irons away from the optimal location "in measurable and quantifiable results how many yards, or feet, does that translate into?"   In my opinion it ok to be dubious but I feel like we need people attempting this sort of data driven investigation. Even if they are wrong in some things at least they are moving the discussion forward. And he has been changing the maps and the way data is interpreted along the way. So, he admits to some of the ideas he started with as being wrong. It is not like we all have not been in that situation 😄 And in any case to proceed forward I feel will require supporting or refuting data. To which as I stated above, I do not have any experience in drivers so I cannot comment on that. But I would like to comment on irons as far as these heat maps. In a video by Elite Performance Golf Studios - The TRUTH About Forgiveness! Game Improvement vs Blade vs Players Distance SLOW SWING SPEED! and going back to ~12:50 will show the reference data for the Pro 241. I can use that to check AskGolfNut's heat map for the Pro 241: a 16mm heel, 5mm low produced a loss of efficiency from 1.3 down to 1.24 or ~4.6%. Looking at AskGolfNut's heatmap it predicts a loss of 3%. Is that good or bad? I do not know but given the possible variations I am going to say it is ok. That location is very close to where the head map goes to 4%, these are very small numbers, and rounding could be playing some part. But for sure I am going to say it is not absurd. Looking at one data point is absurd, but I am not going to spend time on more because IME people who are interested will do their own research and those not interested cannot be persuaded by any amount of data. However, the overall conclusion that I got from that video was that between the three clubs there is a difference in distance forgiveness, but it is not very much. Without some robot testing or something similar the human element in the testing makes it difficult to say is it 1 yard, or 2, or 3?  
    • Wordle 1,668 3/6 🟨🟨🟩⬜⬜ ⬜🟨⬜⬜🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • Wordle 1,668 3/6 🟨🟩🟨🟨⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 Should have got it in two, but I have music on my brain.
    • Wordle 1,668 2/6* 🟨🟨🟩⬛⬛ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.