shredfit

Wondering if Tiger would get criticized for making public statements for his plans on what he could do for the 'human' race. hmm?

Anyone else catch the Johnny Miller's remark about giving Paddy a 'lesson' on ball striking, again totally silencing the other announcer, presumably in disbelief of Millers comments? Of course, Paddy is such a class act he probably just listened to Millers 'Lesson' and mentally, flipped him the bird, when Miller left. Paddy's probable self talk, "Who does this clown think he IS? ... How many majors has he won? ... Perhaps I should be giving him the 'lesson'..."

I've played in the 20's before and it is interesting. Things that I did: I used three balls and rotated them every shot, keeping 2 warming in my pocket... if not your looking at 3-5 club differences in distance. Hitting a GIR is almost impossible. I hit some greens, but the ball would bounce 10 ft in the air off the green. I used a hand warmer in between shots. Used short tees for the driver... Stick them in very little... just the sharp tip goes in the ground. Wear layers of clothes and socks (or not just 1 pair of socks). Mind you, you almost have to be used to winters like this (Minnesota for me) or it would certainly be hell.

Globalization will have positive(short term) and negative(long term) effects, which likely will have nothing to do with government. Econmic globaliztion, or centralization of one world monatary system would be scary at best. Would the whole world become credit driven with nothing to back it up? Would multi-national(now world corporations) be able to use their influence to effect world economics? Who could stop or regulate banks from monopolizing? How would/could resourses be distributed fairly? "I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principles of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale” ------ Thomas Jefferson

Iacas pretty much covered it... However, here is a little personal experience I've had with a shotgun. When younger, my brother and I would go to a shooting range in South Dakota. It was just really and area away from everything on a hillside... They did have and old car door(from a 70's Buick...it was thick and heavy) there and I wanted to see what would happen if I shot it at close range. About 20 feet away put a 5 inch hole clean through the door including the interior side with a 3 inch 20 gauge shell with #4 bird shot.(probably about the same load as a regular length 12 gauge). Indeed very powerful... were talkin' cutting a man in half from that range... not just putting some bb's in the body.

Economic globalization can be also viewed as economic centraliztion, which certainly has a potential for power abuse. And it is happening now.... European Union/Euro(monetary unit) North American Union?

Your kidding right? At close range a shot gun with "bird shot" will put a 5 inch hole in someone. No special round necessary. I don't care how big you are... A 5 inch hole that you can stick you arm though, going through the body WILL stop them... This would happen, if you shot someone(with a shotgun) 10-15 feet away from you... so you got to be pretty close.

I too have looked into how the financial system works, and quite frankly, it scares the crap out of me. At best, it is unconstitutional. I also think it matters very little who actually wins the election, the powers that be, will get their agenda done anyway. Now, I'm off to check my credit score...

Nice! A political catch phrase (libertarianism). I however, prefer Constitutionalism... or lack there of... nutcases aside.

This tends to raise some eyebrows... http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...80303867390173

Wow! some of you have lots of shoes... My wife has been looking at me funny because I have 3 pair Nike, Footjoy, and Etonic... oh yeah, and some Bite golf sandals.

I'm not really shifting goalposts... The variable I'm refering to is or should be feel/or tactile related like "non-auditory vibrations"(there could be others as well). How can one test this using their methods? It's like saying taste is not limited taste buds but also to smell... but only using smell as a testing variable. The only conclusion one could draw from the study is that sound plays a factor in golf ball impact identification independent of feel. After all, you rarely hear someone pulling your finger(unless) I'm done too... it has been fun... thanks for the debate iacas

Actually, chemical equations are representations of what is happening MOST of the time(certainly not 100%). If broken down to the quantum realm, probabilities come into play. If they heard the wrong ball via headphones this make the experiment even less valid due to the methodology(more on this later). If the testers used the methodlogy you just described (ie 1,2, and 3). This is a classic example of a conditioned response(Pavlov). In other words, the testers are basing their results(of which balls they hit) on the pre-determined condition(the sound). Thus, the experiment became more of a psychology study of the participates. It also makes no sense to condition(or fool) the tester by feeding them a wrong or incorrect sound. Again, I'm questioning the methodologies. If they are "tricking" them via sound this is again conditioned. They could choose a methodology to test feel as a tactile response. My conclustsion is also that same as before... The test is not valid.

Actually, I majored in science (Biology w/a minor in Chem). Scientifically, getting something 100% of the time is exceedingly rare an unlikely. Typically, a trend is established and conclusions can be drawn from the trend. This is what sent up red flags about the validity of the article/study. The article has little merit, I'll point out why... If they were certain they'd hit the (wrong) ball... They MUST be basing this on something... another variable besides sound(they are wearing headphones). Therefore, this variable must be taken into account... or the distribution wouldn't be 100%. What is the varible? Is it tactile? If so, it merely points to misinterpretation of the said variable... Which is about the only conclusion one could draw for the given trend(ie 100% wrong). That is my point, If the test doesn't involve anything random... They MUST be basing their choice(wrong ball or right ball) on something other than sound... or there would be a more random distribution of the trend... This would show that the testers really didn't know what ball they were hitting and they were guessing(which you say they are not)... but it wouldn't be anything near 100%.

You are correct, My CB's do have a slight offset.

I understood it... I just don't buy it without knowing the methodologies used for collecting the data. Guessing, even randomly should statistically produce at least some correct ball picks while wearing headphones. Furthermore, if the testers did a significant round of reps... or tests... This would make it even MORE unlikely that they guessed incorrectly 100% of the time. Heck, have someone flip a coin... you guess before they do it... for 100 times... tally each time you are correct... if your correct zero times(highly unlikely) then you would have guessed incorrectly 100% of the time.

OK, I've read the article and still cannot buy what they are saying. How is this possible? How can they draw a conclusion if they were wrong 100% of the time? Couldn't a better conclusion, like say, there MUST be other varibles at work here other than sound or they wouldn't be wrong 100% of the time? Just because someone took the time to write something down and put it in an article doesn't make it so... At least that is my take on it.

While I can cerainly agree that sound plays a factor in choosing a club... I see sound as being purely auditory. "Feel" however, is tactile and is demonstrated on how the club reacts in your hands upon ball contact. I realize that both are happening in the same time... deron is saying that they are the same thing sound/feel: I disagree.

Got a link to it? After a quick search I found several studies that also showed correlations of percieved "feel" with the stiffness, alloy type, dampening, and physical vibrational charecteristics(NOT related to sound). Heck, changing grips has the potential to change "feel". So, still not buying it... at least completely

Really? Using the same reasoning, couldn't one also say that golfers cannot tell the difference between hitting an older Top Flight(the Rock hard kind) and a Pro V1 via feel without hearing the sound at impact? Sorry, not buying it.

I suspect it's a 15-16 year old kid... getting ideas for X-mas. (runs and hides)

Actually, I know for a fact my blades(Titleist 681's) have slightly more loft per club than my Callaways CB's...(ie Titleist 48* PW/Callaway 46* PW). Only other difference is that the 3 iron blade is just a little shorter(1/2 inch?) than the Callaway 3 iron, which I actually like... I've just always had problems trying to fade my irons

I'm not sure that you can do this yourself(I may be wrong). However, I do know that firearm refinishers use black-oxide[it's just a form of controlled rusting]... So I'd try at a local gun shop and ask them about the process, or perhaps they can do your irons for you(for a fee)... It may require hot acid or a hot caustic bath... which can be dangerous or enviromentally hazardous...

Were going to have to agree to disagree on this one too. My natural iron ball flight has always been a draw to straight. I could never hit a fade with my CB irons by using typical methods... open stance/outside in/high finish etc etc... (it always resulted in a pull... or straight). That is, until I started using blades... I can hit a slight fade now, perhaps because blades don't have the forgiveness of perimeter weighting? Not sure, but it's easier for me to work the ball with them.

81 holes, with 27 of them walking 54 riding.. Last year with my league partner in Iowa. It was sort of a cooler day and it rained a bit. We had the course to ourselves baically... We did play through 2 groups... all day long... sun up to sunset.