Mooka

Hiring a black coach doesn't mean squat. Hiring a black coach meant he thought he was the best man for the job, not more or less. Furthermore, because this subject runs deep, it's a matter of a superiority complex. Donald Sterling is still signing the checks, he still makes the final decisions, he still runs his idea of a "plantation." As long is this is in place, it doesn't matter who he hires, dates, associates with. As long as he still feels like he's the run running the show, all is fine and well. To clarify, plantation owners bought and sold blacks not only because they thought they were not worthy of being free as individuals but because they saw value in their ability to work. They were priced and sold accordingly. Plantation owners also did not care that "our" women were black when they exploited and raped them. It's the feeling of power that ran through their blood as well as the disdain for another race. So why was he showing prejudice towards them? Because they were poor? Was it because they like baseball? Or was it because they were black or Latino? Sounds and is racist to me. Sorry you see differently. A lot of old-School is racist school to me. And this is both sides of the coin (Black and White). Sorry, and I don't mean to offend you or your grandmother, but I would say she is probably racist. There is no misconception of black people. I'll give you a misconception: French people don't smell so great because they don't wear deodorant. That to me is a misconception. But the place doesn't smell good because it has blacks and Latinos that live there, that's either racist or extremely borderline. Please clarify what you mean by old-school or misconception because it doesn't make sense to me.

Hello Sandtrap, I don't post here often but hope I can gain some advice, or specifically start a discussion on the subject. I have experimenting with different ways of gripping the club. Currently my grip is a strong 2.5-3 knuckles on my left hand and weaker right hand (My right hand V points closer to my chin than my right shoulder). I mention this because I figure this will be relevant to the conversation. I've noticed that when I have my right forearm and elbow lower than my left at address, it causes me to suck the club inside too soon and this position also seems to cause the face of the club to open at address. (could be due to my grip) My takeaway swivels the club even more open during the back swing. (sorry for lack of video). My typical miss these days are either push fades or low straight draws/hooks. Well those details aside, I had a 9 hole round where i started well, then fell apart. Mid-way during the round, I decided to have my right forearm above the shaft plane and above my left arm at address. This had a very weird feeling but produced THE highest launching long irons with a slight push draw pattern I've ever played and very crisp short irons. I even hit a 105 yard SW on 18. The primary miss was a high push that went the same distance as a normal shot. just a few degrees off line. Most importantly, no hooks. So, my question is, why could this forearm relationship produce that much of a change? Could my weaker RH grip require me to have a higher right forearm at address? If so, Could this cause the shoulders to open any? I've searched all over the net and only could find an example of Hogan with his right forearm higher than the left and IT BE EXPLAINED WHY he did it ( http://www.rotaryswing.com/golf-instruction/Ben_Hogan/ben-hogan-address-position.php It's under #3 - Arm position) I've seen tour players setup like this. But I'm looking for the why, benefits, pros and cons. I hope I'm clear in what I'm trying to ask but if you need more clarification, please ask, and I'll try to explain as best as possible. P.S Lastly, and this is probably off topic, but I don't want to start another thread, can a weak RH grip cause the club face to close MORE rapidly if combined with a weaker LH grip?

Quote: He would have to keep up winning, Rory looks like he is starting to come into form. Now if Rory doesn't start to win a few he will fall to Tiger very easy. Rory had a lot of wins late in the year that really pushed his lead as number 1, and as the year goes he will start to loose points as those tournaments pass. I say we could see a nice stretch where Tiger and Rory will fight for the 1. I'm sure Nike will love that. How is Rory coming back to form? A T8 from behind in a no-cut event? I guess, if you insist. Quote: I think Tiger is going to have to work on working the ball right to left - so that he can win at Augusta. Once he starts hitting draws - on holes that setup for a draw... I think he will officially be 'back'. Right now he is still hitting an awful lot of cuts. This past week at Doral was a perfect example of that. But with that said... I believe Bay Hill will be the tournament where he regains #1. He is comfortable playing there - having won the Arnold Palmer Invitational 7 times. Who says he can't make it 8 in two weeks? I can name another golfer, with 18 majors by the way, who played ALOT of cuts. I'll say he will be there by Bay Hill though, to answer the OP question.

What's up Sand Trap! Just joined today, 22 Handicap in Charleston, SC. I've always looked at this site for years but had to join TODAY because of this discussion. (usually just like to read the comments, rather than comment myself). As someone who has just picked up this great game, I'm very torn on this issue. I think it's a sad state of affairs in the game. First, if the USGA wants to ban anchoring (which is fine by me because they are not banning the putter at all, See http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-instruction/2012-11/photos-anchoring-rule#slide=1 , for different ways to use the same putter but not anchor), it's perfectly within their jurisdiction to do so. Sure some people may not agree with it but part of their "job" is to define the Rules of Golf. Unless we are saying that we want more than one governing body over golf, this is what we have. (P.S. I'm against bifurcation as well. One set of rules. People don't even play by the rules we have now, so why 2 sets. No logic at all.) Second, for those against the ban, I have a few questions (some of these may have been answered already in various threads). Because part of the problem to me is that the golfing community is not asking the right questions, especially the media. If you are one who practices of the anchored method of putting, did you start with a traditional putting stroke? If so, why did you switch? I ask this because one of the #1 reasons people are against the ban is because they believe it doesn't provide an advantage. With this statement, people also usually comment on the fact there is no statistical evidence to ban such a stroke. This is a very important question because I find only a few acceptable answers that won't give way to an advantage. These are (and feel free to add any that you know of that I don't mention): "I like the look of it better," "It suits my eyesight better," "I like the feel of it better," etc. The problem I see is that these questions are never asked to the touring pros that use it. Even if you answer the question with, "I like the feel of the club better," I would like the person asking to follow up with, "Why do you like the feel better?" or "what's so different about the feel?" I wish the media would challenge the players more in press conferences to the reason they use the stroke, especially if it doesn't provide an advantage. Speaking of which, on Morning Drive this morning, Ted Bishop, PGA or America President, told a story about an 65 year old member at his club that told him that if he has to go back to using the traditional method of putting, he would probably take up fishing instead. Now this statement alone does not tell you that the member has gained an advantage but ask him the same question that I proposed. What's his answer? He can't say, "It's easier," "it's more efficient," "I had the yips," "I was nervous over 2 foot putts," because this would imply that there is an advantage or at the very least a elimination of a variable previously present in his previous traditional putting technique. Of course people can try to look for stats or point out the lack of statistical data to back their point, but does every conversation has to be backed up with stats? Third, Why can't someone or an entity (A governing body such as the USGA or R&A;) right a wrong (or what they perceive as a wrong) just because it's been allowed for 25+ years. As an African American, you can understand why I believe this makes no sense. Of course we could not have abolished slavery and not abolished Jim Crow laws and just left the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the table to collect dust. Why? Because it's been done this way for 400 years and no one said or did anything about it, right? Of course not, that's not how the world works. It's called progression, it's called change, it's called finally doing something that should have been done a long time ago. It's never too late. Obviously golf and civil rights are 2 different issues but the premise is the same. How many businesses would or have failed in the dot.com boom because they said, "Well, people have been making phone orders for our entire existence, why take online orders now?" Lastly, I firmly believe the anchoring method is a different stroke and that's what this comes down to. The USGA wants everyone to use the same stroke to get the ball in the hole. There will be variations such as grip, stance, even length of putter, but overall the same principle of motion should be used. If this were not the case, they would not have outlawed the other ways of putting that were previously used. The idea that the USGA shouldn't allow metal drivers with 460cc heads, roll back the golf ball, or iron shafts is bogus because while the equipment was changed, the method of using it did not. That's real fact for you. I don't know why this is even mentioned in the argument. Yeah, people hit the ball farther, the ball gets in the air easier, etc, but they are still swinging the club the same way Bobby Jones, Ben Hogan, Jack Nicklaus, and Tiger Woods had, have, and will be swinging the club because that's the way golf is played. Of course, if the driver would self-correct your swing plane and impact position, then we have a real argument.