pittpanther

Exactly! This is what most people seem to forget - Tiger became so popular because he WON - a LOT! He was consistent week to week, and he was almost always in contention, even if he didn't win in the end. What do we have now? The "winner of the week." We don't have anyone consistently winning tournaments. The guy who won the Opne, I don't expect to ever hear from him again. And where was Cink, to defend his title? As long as the PGA only has guys that win this week, then miss the cut next week, it will never be as popular as when Tiger was winning consistently.

The cart attendants reply was basically "sh*t happens," and you agree with him... OK. Are you agreeing because the only thing that happened was a scratched club? What if his brand new $300 driver was snapped? In other words, are you agreeing because the damage was minimal, or would you say "sh*t happens" regardless of how bad the damage was?

The Open Championship offered us gray, dreary skies, temps in the 60s (in the middle of summer?), 30 MPH winds, waist-high rough, huge changes in weather depending on your tee time. Most guys struggled, whereas a few seemed to thrive... Many fans on these boards complained about the quality of the golf being played at the US Opens, and how the setup punishes the players - not sure I see much difference at the Open Champ. If you didn't like Pebble this year, how could St Andrews be considered any different?

But you still can't bring yourself to apologize...

Since the rangefinder was turned in, feel free to apologize to all the city golfers you slandered...

Who else's fault would it be? Did JD "catch" alcoholism like a cold?

In this aspect, the NBA is no different than the other team sports. You cannot and will not win a title without multiple STAR players. The Jordan teams don't win without Pippen (an NBA top 50 all time player). This years Lakers team doesn't win without Gasol becoming an all-star caliber player. The Bird and Magic teams each had multiple all-stars and/or hall of famers. Same for Isiah's Detroit teams, and the Spurs teams. Cleveland had decent players around LeBron, but not star quality. They tried to upgrade with Antawn Jamison, but he fell silent during the playoffs. So as far as LeBron is concerned, I'm sure he said to himself "I've been hear for 7 years and the best player we have other than me is Mo Williams?" Or the guy whose only claim to fame is being Candace Parker's brother? Cleveland made no serious additions to their roster to become a championship contender while LeBron was there. The Cavs deserve what they got. Don't tell me they serious thought adding an old Shaquille would put them over the hump? For every Jordan who was able to stay in one place and win, there's a Barkley, who stayed in Philly most of his career and won nothing. Same with Iverson. Same with Ewing. Staying in one place is no guarantee of winning, if your organization is not 100% committed to winning. Even then, it's not enough - sometimes luck comes into play. When Pippen was drafted, no one could forsee he would be a top-50 all time player. Robert Parrish was a complete nobody until he went to Boston. etc...

So the NBA takes one more step towards becoming more like baseball. The Yankees had the nucleus of Jeter, Rivera, Petitte, and Posada, but that would not win them a title. So they bought one with CC and A-Rod and Texiera. Is anyone complaining that NY's most-recent title is not legitimate? Is A-Rod's legacy diminished because he didn't win a title in Texas? I don't think so. Should Lebron win the title next year, we won't even remember that he used to play in Cleveland. What will be much more interesting is if Miami DOESN'T win the title, or even make it to the championship game. Can that young coach they have control this team of highly-paid stars? When there's 5 seconds on the clock and the Heat are down by one, what play is he going to draw up? Who takes that shot?

Not trying to be a wise guy, but back in the day weren't hybrids and woods known as "rescue" clubs? As a matter of fact "rescue" is even the brand name used by Taylormade for their hybrids. Weren't hybrids introduced as go-to clubs for hitting out of the rough? Now all you guys are saying "use a mid-iron from the rough." So which is it - mid-iron or hybrid?

You might consider a group lesson. I started with a series of group lessons that were offered by a local pro. These were six, once-weekly lessons, for about $150. Each lesson only had about 4-6 people, so there was plenty of time for individual attention. Each week focused on one or two details, and even provided us with take-home materials so we could remember what was taught when we practiced on our own. I don't think we ever hit a ball until week 3 or 4. We first went through grip, and posture, and fundamentals of an in-to-out swing, before the pro allowed us to hit balls.

I don't have a problem at all with responsible gun ownership, and can see the value for home protection. What I don't understand is how carrying a gun helps to protect yourself. I would assume in most robbery attempts that the criminal has his weapon out and pointed at you before you have an opportunity to respond. So now you're in a situation where you're staring at a gun, in the hands of some shaky crack addict. Would you try to pull your own weapon, and risk him firing before you have a chance to even get your gun out of your holster? Contrary to what you see in the movies, I don't think even trained police officers would attempt that move. So I don't really see how concealed carry really helps protect me. Of course if someone ELSE is being robbed, I would be in a position to offer assistance.

Your choice of words is very interesting. If golf becomes "boring" to you in the middle of a round, perhaps this really isn't the game for you?

Please, Please, Please! Stop trying to "pitch" when you're close to the green, and instead start "chipping" by using an iron but with a putting stroke. No chance of skulls - the worst that can happen is you run it by the hole or not far enough, but you will be on the green.

Tee off either really early, or really late. I think you learned your lesson about walking - not when it's 95 degreees or worse. The cart gives you a little breeze, and a little shade. Walking, you'll have neither.

I'm going to disagree with you, because I think there are times that even mid-caps, if they CAN shape it, will find it makes things easier in some everyday situations. For example, my natural shot shape is a draw. I cannot fade, and have never tried to put any energy into learning how to fade. On a straight hold, or a dogleg left, my natural draw either doesn't hurt me, or can even help. But at my "home" course, there are a few holes that veer to the right - not necessarily doglegs, but think more of a "crescent" shape to the right. With my draw, if I am not careful I will either end up off the fairway to the left, or I will hit the trees on the right. Due to the shae of the hole, my draw makes things worse. If I had the ability to fade,this shaped hole is where I would do it. It would reduce the possibility of me getting into trouble.

You are so correct, iacas. If I could do this, then hitting off of tight lies (or dirt, or even a cart path) wouldn't matter, as I would always hit the ball first, not the ground. So how do I adjust to make this happen, repeatedly?

Correct. No penalty.

You can say this 1,000 times, but most people on this board automatically assume that every golfer is best off spending thier time on the sort game - even if it's a guy shooting over 110 and can't get 100 yards off the tee. Or he duffs approach after approach.

Tiger didn't "pick" any of his women. One thing I learned about Tigar through all of this is that he's lazy when it comes to getting tail. He waited for the women to come to him. I bet a psychiatrist would say that in Tiger's mind, he felt what he was doing to Elin wasn't so bad, because he was not aggressively going out and hitting on women. Instead he was simply sitting around, the women hit on him, and away they went...

I don't think this will fly. If you play two balls, you'll get penalized either for "playing the incorrect ball" or "practicing during a round." I think the only way around this is to keep Two Scores - one his way, one your way. Don't "sign your card" until the issue is resolved, and you choose the correct score. The problem with this approach is as you mention - suppose I think it's a movable obstruction, but my partner does not. I move it, and play on. After the round, a third-party agrees it was not a movable obstruction. I will now have to add a number of penalty strokes (or lose the hole if match play) because I improved my lie by moving something I shouldn't have moved.

People think golf is easy because the guys at the highest levels of golf do not typically look very athletic. For every ripped-up "Camilo Villegas" type I can show you 20 guys with pot bellies, and another 20 super-skinny stick figures. As a group, pro golfers look like guys that get sand kicked in their faces. So the assumption is that if this nonathletic-looking person is able to play golf well, then golf must not require a lot of physical coordination. In terms of fitness, things are changing, and the guys are a lot more fit than they were during Nicklaus' time. But guys like Perry and Cabrera are not rare.

But I certainly understand his point, at least for my game. I'm not used to swinging my irons "easier." When I practice my 6-iron I swing normally, which is not 100%, but it's a full swing. I don't practice hitting my mid and long irons any less. So when you ask me to club up and hit it "easier," this is not obvious what to do. Half the time when I club up and hit easy, I still come up short because I swung TOO easy! So instead of taking a shorter club (easier to control, less chance of a flub) i took a longer club (more possibility for error) yet did not benefit.

Not exactly. A random golf ball affecting your stance or swing would qualify as a movable obstruction , not a loose impediment... Still can be moved without penalty.

Dude, you need richer parents...

You answered your own question... Why does ABC put on crap like "The Bachelor" and "The Bachelorette?" These two, and all the other "dating" reality shows that are all over cable TV, are much worse to society than a Hammer infomercial.