I believe you really have to know your group. When they hit an exceptional shot, I'll commend them otherwise, the most I'll say is OK. Most of the time I'll not say anything. I don't get upset when anyone says something about one of my shots but I could see people not liking the idea of someone congratulating them on an average or less than average shot.
I've been to the one in Phoenix. It was fun, but we we on the second or third(?) level, and I couldn't take a single swing without feeling like I was going to fall off, so I was hitting everything off my back foot.
My hands also sweat like crazy, so not having a glove was rough.
But it was a lot of fun. Would do again.
I completely agree. I in the sciences and we conduct experiments all the time (I know Duhhh). I insist that the hypothesis is that the system is flawed until proven otherwise. The study above could be perfectly valid under the conditions and processes in the study. What it doesn't tell you is if they did initial studies that focused on which conditions spikes fair best and spikeless performed worst. Possibly they showed that under dry freshly cut fairways with no clippings, with shot grass (say tour length), and hard ground spikeless was better than hard plastic cyclone spiked but if the grass was longer with fresh clippings and and soft ground spikes were much better. WIthout knowing what data was not included and how many conditions they chose all that can be said is that in that group there was a trend. I also don't know if the difference is statistically significant.