iacas

That looks like it, yeah. Maybe I'll dig it out here soon. I was into shooting way more a long time ago (nearly 15 years ago when I got it), but still hadn't done anything competitive or changing out triggers or anything like that, so I won't do much to derail the topic into a general discussion. Thanks.

I hope you were joking somehow. I won't ever understand longer-time members of this site who believe things like that.

Yeah… any way I figure it, I can't get 1 in 17M, unless it's empirical or factors in something like "he had to aim at the hole…" or "perhaps this hole location is a bit more accessible" or something.

Yes and no. I don't know what you're asking, though. What industry specifically? "Golf" is a pretty big industry. Equipment? Instruction? Course ownership? Food & Beverage? etc.?

http://people.stfx.ca/smackenz/Publications/plumbbob-paper.pdf Thst study implies that the way to plumb bob is to stand directly on the line with your feet and perpendicular to the slope. Like this: Now, there are still several problems with this: Most people won't stand anything close to perpendicular to the slope - they'll stand "vertically" as they always do. Many people favor leaning one way or the other? You're finding the slope at your feet only. There's no calibration for the speed of the green (by holding your putter out farther or nearer). There's already a bias because even if you stand directly on the line, your dominant eye is off-center. I had another reason or two but I'm forgetting it right now… but the above further illustrate why I continue to say that the only real thing plumb bobbing can be relied upon is to give you a reference for vertical. From the PDF's conclusion: "The results from this study indicate that the plumb-bob method is highly inconsistent."

I think it should be used any time there's a sprinkler head within two clublengths of the green and the ball and everything in between is a closely mown area.

It looks more like a spot where another iron rubbed against it or something.

Good to see the Rugers still doing well. I have a Ruger Mark II slab-side with a red dot scope. It's not a bolt action; I think I have the semi-auto. It's been a few years… I should get it out and go plinking some time.

Right. Or, the first player is 1 in 12,000. But the last three are 3 in 12,000 (because each has a 1 in 12,000 chance, but any of the three of them can count, so 3 in 12,000). So it's 3 in 144,000,000 or 1 in 48,000,000?

Better, no?

Wow. Jerks. I'm probably brain farting - or maybe these are just what the empirical data has shown over the many years and it's not mathematical at all, really - but how does 12,000:1 for one player (one chance) become 17,000,000:1 when two golfers out of four have to make it?

This.

Hidden Figures, birdie. Better than I thought. I get focusing on Taraji P. Henson's figure, but I think they could have done more with the others, too. Though it took place in the early 1960s, it's still tough to believe (I wasn't born until 1978) that racism and sexism were so prevalent even then. LEGO: The Batman Movie, bogey. I was excited to see this. Batman in the first LEGO movie was great. This one was weak, and the novelty of animated LEGOs with their little funny hands and all that stuff has worn a bit thin.

In his signature. Also, we enforce the same naming, so… "My Swing (username)" will get you there, too. So do I, and unlike @mvmac the last year or two, I'm still a pro looking to continue to get students.

Spieth in the water with a 3W, oof.