teamroper60

To me it is The Open Championship. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy watching all of them but not only is it the oldest of the majors, this is golf the way it was envisioned by the founders of the game and there is something to be said for that..

Haven't tried Go Jo to clean a golf bag but I did find it will take the black marks that I get around my pocket areas from getting in and out of a cart off my pants/shorts. I need to give my golf bag a good cleaning this year, so I will keep this in mind..

Glad they went back to the wider toe box. Thanks for the info!!

At this point, that is not only a ridiculous comment, it isn't even original....

Not a fact, an opinion. It has been shown repeatedly that they have won a helluva lot over those 10 years, including a Super Bowl.

And in a new twist on deflategate: http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/deflation-experiments-show-patriots-may-have-a-point-after-all/ar-AA8LI9x Doesn't explain why the Colts balls were at proper spec (unless of course they were over-inflated to begin with, ala Aaron Rodgers) but apparently it is entirely possible for a ball to lose 2psi due to the change in temperature..

Go hook up with some porn stars... (he seemed to play better when he was banging them!)

I voted no. First of all, even though I don't really play tournaments other than the occasional charity scramble, I want my handicap to be legit and it can't be if I used illegal clubs. Secondly, I view golf as me playing against the course and my personal bests, so using an illegal driver would be cheating myself.

I see the Seahawks are going to get a signal from a ref, should the Patriots use one of their ineligible receiver formations.. http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/nfl-to-assist-seahawks-in-iding-pats-ineligible-receiver-sets/ar-AA8Kcb4 Probably won't mean much but since all they are supposed to do is notify the opposing team of eligible/ineligible receivers, this seems like something of an extra step..

I didn't miss anything. I clearly see that you changed the parameters so that your comment about super bowl wins became accurate. Spin it how you want, when you changed the parameters to 9 years and 51 weeks, you did it and the only reason to do it was to make your comment right. Hell, let's change them to the past 13 months. Then we can say no team other than the Seahawks has won anything since they are the only team to have won a Super Bowl during that period! BTW, it was not just Brady but also Manning who lobbied for teams to use their own footballs, so athough he played a part in it, you can't lay that solely on Brady. But again, you write it how you want it to be, facts be damned. As of Sunday, the Pats will have been to the Super Bowl more times in the past decade (your original criteria) than any other team and as many under your modified criteria, which means they were the AFC champion more times (or as many times, depending on which set of criteria you choose to use) than any other team in that period. They have won more games than any other team during either criteria period and are one of only 4 teams in the history of the NFL to complete a regular season undefeated and untied. They are also the only team to ever win 18 games in a row in one season (also accomplished during either of your criteria periods). So saying they haven't won anything is wrong and invalidates your own argument since it clearly flies in the face of documented facts. They have won and won more than any other team in the league, no matter how you try to spin it.

For the record, hate is defined as an intense or passionate dislike. Sounds exactly like what his posts have portrayed to me. I have no problem with that, so I have no need to try discrediting him and in fact, I was not. We all have our favorites (and the Pats aren't even my favorites but I do respect what they have accomplished). Strong emotions is part of what makes fans into fans and without them, sports would not exist. My comments were directed specifically to the error in his and the fact he even went so far as to change the parameters to make his argument valid. I call that hate and the definition backs me up. The fact you don't like it and what you think of my comments is of no consequence to me at all. With regard to legitimate beefs with NE, ok, fine. The rest of the league has moved on from spygate years ago and as has been pointed out, NE is far from the only offender to exist. Hell, they aren't even the most recent to have taped opposing teams signals, and yet they are the only ones thought of as cheaters. (Incidentally, the Patriots have a higher winning percentage since spygate than before it broke, so it is obvious videoing signals wasn't really the reason they won games.) So continue to live in the past if you must, that's your perogative but understand spygate is in the past and so far, it has not actually been proven that NE altered the pressure in those footballs after the refs inspected them.

As I said, your hatred is showing. Rather than trying to change the parameters when proven wrong, you might as well embrace it....

Your blind hatred is showing... There are not 8 teams with more Super Bowl wins in the past decade. There are two, the Steelers and the Giants (who won both of theirs over the Patriots). Everone else who has won a Super Bowl in the past decade is in a tie with NE, who last won it on Feb. 6, 2005. In fact, there aren't 8 teams with more Super Bowl wins total. There are 5 and if not for a couple of fluke plays, there would be only one. As of Sunday, NE moves into a three-way tie for the most appearances all time in the Super Bowl and in the B/B era, no team has been there more times. Hate them if you want. But at least be realistic when you do. As far as GOAT, either team or player, that is a discussion for which there can never be a consensus. The game/rules has changed too much over the years to ever definitively prove who or what team is the absolute best (the same can be said in virtually any sport). The best you can do is compare them to their peers from the same era and even then it seems there is not going to be a consensus..

I don't really have a dog in this hunt since the Rams aren't in the Super Bowl but the only undisputed facts so far are that the balls were under specified pressure when tested with a gauge at half time. It has still not been established that they were tested with a gauge prior to the game. The NFL statement says: "Prior to the game, the game officials inspect the footballs to be used by each team and confirm that this standard is satisfied, which was done before last Sunday’s game." Notice it does not say how the inspection was conducted (i.e.: with an air pressure gauge). So at this point, we are expected to assume the pressure was actually tested with a gauge. Proper wording can be very important since certain words may imply things which are not absolute facts. Businesses use these tactics all the time when making press releases. I would expect nothing less from the NFL and neither should anyone else. In this case, the choice of words may mean nothing or they may be the difference in whether the refs actually tested the air pressure with a gauge or just gave the balls a squeeze. At this point, we don't know for certain which is the truth (and given the way other investigations have been conducted, we may never know either). Second, I have personally experienced instances where two different tire gauges gave me very different readings on the same tire, so it is possible the Patriots believed they gave the NFL properly inflated balls, the refs squeezed them and thought they were ok, passed them before the game and then found at half time they were not. Finally, Aaron Rodgers has said the Packers try to get over-inflated balls past the refs (over-inflated balls would also be a violation/cheating) and lamented the many times it was unsuccessful. Since it was clear from his statements that this has been done multiple times, the question becomes why try if you were caught every time? The fact they have tried repeatedly suggests they have been successful at some point. Now, I am not saying any of this is fact and it may well turn out the Patriots broke the rules. If that is what the investigation finds, so be it. Assess the prescribed penalty and move on. Couldn't care less. But I am unwilling to say they cheated as if it is a certainty when the actual facts (not supposed leaks) do not yet support that presumption.