-
Posts
35 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Watermark
-
Automatic! And you're quite welcome. It was probably far more information than anyone could have ever wanted or needed, but if nothing else, it should serve to underscore the lack of logical reasoning that often accompanies regulatory decisions of this type. The fact is, often times, the top-end programmatic decision-makers, are grossly ill-informed or downright ignorant of the relevant limitations in testing and pharmacology, making them the wrong people to be making such decisions. That's the basic point to be made.
-
Many thanks, Ole Tom! Let me try to answer your suggestions here, one at a time: 1) LOOKS: If it were up to me and appearance was the sole criteria, I would run down to the shop today without hesitation and purchase a full set of Mizuno MP-69s. They look fantastic, they swing fantastic, and despite being a relative beginner, I can even hit them fairly well, but I haven't made such a purchase because they're rated as being way beyond a "beginner" level iron. 2) FEEL: Here again, the Mizuno MP-64s and MP-69s quickly float to the top of the pack. I've hit balls with almost every single iron in both sets, and they both feel spectacular, with a slight edge in "feel" going to the MP-69s and a slight edge in "forgiveness" going to the MP-64s. However, my entire exposure to both sets has been strictly indoors (in a local gold shop), so I have no idea what either set might yield for me (ggod or bad) outdoors on an actual course. Some shops offer a 'no-questions-asked' 30-90 day return/exchange program or policy on certain brands, and I didn't ask about the Mizunos specifically, but if that's possible, I might just opt for that approach. 3) LOOKS TO OTHERS: I have no real concerns here. I'm not one who obsesses about others or what others think, and I don't play on super-prestigious courses or whatever, but I'm confident that either set of Mizunos would make the cut in this regard. 4) BEWARE: I've seen the term "blades" used many times in my on-line research, and I'm not quite sure what that term actually means, but yes, if I buy 'new' irons, I'm currently inclined to get a 5-PW set (steel shaft, stiff flex), with suitable 3H and 4H hybrids, and perhaps 2-3 wedges. 5) BRANDS & MIXING: Here again, I'm perfectly in-line with your thoughts. The preliminary research I've been doing both on-line and at the retail level, leads me to believe that most serious golfers mix and match brands based on class-specific performance (i.e., drivers vs. irons vs. wedges, etc.). And of course, everyone is going to have their personal favorites in any given class of club, which presents obvious pitfalls for the complete novice (like me), because of the inherent bias in such evaluations. However, if a guy looks real hard, and does his homework properly, I think he can gain a fairly reliable assessment of the 'better' (not necessarily the "best") drivers or irons or wedges, etc. So far, my take on things would suggest that Taylormade and perhaps Cobra are both respectable drivers and woods . . . Mizuno, Taylormade, Titleist and Ping are apparently well-recognized for their irons, and if I bought a set today, I'd probably opt for the Vokey SM4 wedges. There you have it!
-
Thanks Solarbear! Trust me, I took the earlier Ping recommendation under serious advisement. In fact, I did a search and found a number of used sets of Ping irons for-sale, some of which were in decent shape. However, the prices, even for "used" were in some cases almost half the price of a 'new' set of current-day irons, including some very respectable brands (e.g., TM, Mizuno, etc.). For example, I saw a 4-PW used set of Pings listed for $500 plus shipping, and I can get a 3-PW set of Mizuno MP-64's for $750 with free shipping. I'll say this though . . . I really like the look of the Ping's and they clearly have a great reputation. The other thing I'm still struggling with here (and I mentioned this above), is this business of custom fitting. I can totally see the purpose in doing so, but I don't see what good it does me to purchase a used set of clubs and pay the exorbitant shipping charges from the U.S. Mainland for such a set, knowing ahead-of-time that they'll probably need extensive modification upon their arrival based upon my 'fitting' specifications? Since the local golf shops have few (if any) complete sets of brand new irons, preferring instead to custom order everything based upon your custom fitting specs determined at their shop, how is this any different than having to go through the very same process with a set of used (Ping) clubs? In my mind, I'm having trouble reconciling these two approaches or the relative dollars involved. In other words, if a guy's going to jump through all of those hoops and deal with all of those hassles, why not just spend the additional $200-$300 and buy a new set of TM's or Mizunos on-line, and have them tailored upon arrival? Do you see what I'm saying?
-
Doh! Color me 'misinformed'. The first dozen posts in this thread were full-bodied photos in bikinis, so I guess I misunderstood. Consider me "schooled"!
-
I don't have a firm opinion one-way or another on this particular topic, but as a forensic toxicologist with too many years of experience in controlled substance-testing both in civil (workplace) and criminal cases, I do have an opinion on their suggested approach here, so I'll say this much . . . Traditionally, blood testing was reserved for instances where 'time-specific' altered- or impaired- behavior of the subject was the issue at-hand (e.g. DUI/DWI in a vehicular manslaughter or other negligent homicide, unattended death/suicide investigations or coroners inquest, etc.). In most other cases however, breath analysis, urinalysis, even hair and saliva analyses proved convenient, expeditious and sufficient in protecting worker or public safety. That all changed with the advent of steroid abuse. Not only are steroids (and their key metabolites) difficult to detect by traditional means, they are also therapeutic (pharmacologically active) at extremely low concentrations in blood or urine, relative to the typical drug of abuse (e.g., cocaine, methamphetamine, etc.). This makes them a somewhat problematic group of analytes, and the U.S Olympic Committee learned that firsthand back in the late 80's. Personally, if I'm the high-commissioner of golf, I don't much care about when a given subject was exposed to the controlled substance or illicit drug (be it anabolic steroid or otherwise), unless his/her actions were somehow 'time-sensitive' in nature, and let's face it, golf really ain't that. Some, like flamboyant boxer Floyd Mayweather, Jr., might argue that boxing matches or golf tournaments are in-fact "time-sensitive", but in the target case of steroids, are they, really? We're not talking here about the incidental, fast-acting influence of stimulants or depressants like amphetamines, cocaine, or ethyl alcohol on one's momentary driving ability. Rather, we're talking about the prolonged, chronic, low-level use/abuse of steroids and their purported influence on athletic prowess, and those are two radically different animals altogether. How long ago the exposure occurred, how long a given drug is detectable, and in what specific biological matrices (blood or urine), should really be the only controlling factors in deciding whether to mandate blood vs. urine testing, and this evaluation in-turn hinges largely on the principal of "half-life" (or how long the drug is detectable in practical terms). As a commissioner or regulator of an athletic competition, if steroids are my chief concern, all that I should really care about, is whether the competitor in-question has been exposed to the regulated substance in his or her recent (perhaps 72-hour) history. Arguably, the use of blood for detecting the presence or absence of the parent steroid serves little to no purpose in this instance (i.e., detection of key metabolites hours or days after exposure via urinalysis is sufficiently incriminating in my view). By example, when injected intravenously, heroin rapidly metabolizes to 6-mono-acetyl morphine (6-MAM), which then metabolizes to morphine and codeine, and those in-turn to still other (or further) opiates, and so-on. But the actual half-life of heroin itself (the parent drug) in whole blood, is typically less than 50-seconds. In other words, less than 1/100th of the initial dosage is present just ten-minutes later. So what good does it do me to test for it in blood? Or for that matter 6-MAM? They're both too short-lived! Unless the alleged infraction or crime was less than a couple of minutes ago, I've got no real chance of ever seeing it. Since the half-life of most drugs in blood (including steroids) is on the order of minutes or hours (not days or weeks), and since primary metabolites (in most cases) are more readily detected than the parent drug itself, its a non-starter. The parent drug continues to metabolize, and forensically significant metabolites continue to enter and pool-up (becoming more concentrated) in the individual's bladder for periods of up to 72-hours. So I say . . . who needs blood? Shoots, give me urine! Heroin or cocaine, androgens or estrogens, one-time abuser or frequent flyer, I''ll get it done perfectly well with pee-pee, baby! However, in the event that my preliminary results yield a confirmed positive in your urine, I'm likely to take a second run at you for a more invasive blood sample, and I'd then have probable cause to do. Anyway, that's my 2-cents, but you didn't hear any of this from me! And if you try to say so, I'll deny it, most vehemently!
-
Lots of favorites over the years, but I'd probably stop for Jordan Carver if she were broke-down on the highway somewhere's . . . How can you not LOVE that 'slept-in' look to the hair!
-
O.K., thanks to all of those who have contributed here - I sincerely appreciate and value the pointers and the feedback. I'd like to say a couple of things right up front to help clarify my hopes or aspirations regarding my interest-level in the game and also in terms of purchasing clubs. Some of what I'll say might aggravate the more experienced players here, because it'll invariably seem to them like I'm proposing too large of an expenditure or purchasing a level of quality far beyond what's needed for a beginning player, but I too have my views on this topic, including some directly relevant and comparable experiences with other equipment purchases over my lifetime. First off, I know with great certainty that I will in-fact continue to play the game of golf on a long-term basis. I'm simply at that particular point in life now (age 61) where I need the regular physical activity, yet some of the more physical sports like surfing, tennis and hockey are beginning to tax me, big-time! Plus, I have the wife's inherent and long-term love of the game of golf as an additional motivation. So, the issue about buying 'cheap' or 'used' clubs (vs. new), simply because I might soon quit the game of golf, is a non-issue - its not gonna happen. Secondly, regarding the issue of 'beginners' gear vs. 'players' gear or the overall cost likely to be incurred . . . here again, I don't have any reservations. I would much prefer to purchase 'new' over used and stick with something of a higher (non-beginner) variety or quality, so that I'm forced to learn the game (including proper stance, swing, ball strike, etc.) over time, rather than floundering for months or years with sub-standard gear, and slowly or never improving my game. There are many parallels of this concept in my life from guitars to ice skates to tennis racquets to surfboards. In my experience, if you start-off with junk, your skill level will eventually top-off at 'junk'. Conversely, if you start-off with reasonably high-grade equipment, you may suck and suck big-time for a while, but eventually, in order to take full advantage of that higher-grade gear, you're forced to improve your skills to be in-line with the quality of that gear, whether its turn-arounds on skates, fingerpicking on a guitar or swinging a racquet. Throughout my life, this has been my experience. And so, I am inclined to apply these principles to the purchase of golf clubs, by slowly assembling a mixed (or custom) set of 'new' (A-/B+ level) clubs of different makes and models, and then making any changes that are necessary from there, after using them for a few months. To that end, I'm going to continue hitting the local golf shops and seeing what I can learn including getting fitted, having my swing speed confirmed, and any other unique or personal traits/characteristics that I can determine. However, many if not most brands of 'new' clubs are in very short supply locally, and for this reason, many new or returning local players, even some veteran golfers, will readily make purchases on-line without hesitation. And then, if need be, they'll have changes to those clubs made at a local shop. So, here's my central question . . . what is the general consensus among the membership here on this approach for a beginning player like me? Would it be wise for me to do that? In other words, I know that I have a reasonably powerful swing (which presumably calls for a 'stiff' shaft), and I know that I'm of average club length (i.e., 38.0"-38.5" measurement from wrist crease to floor). Plus, I don't necessarily consider a $1500-$2000 purchase price for a complete set of 12-14 decent clubs to be unreasonable. So, that said, would it be considered reckless or imprudent of me to simply buy a full set of well-recognized, brand name irons on-line (right-hand, steel shaft, stiff flex), and begin using them for a few months, making whatever changes are necessary (if any) in shaft type or lie at a later date? I say this because I'm leaning heavily towards doing just that. Specifically, I'm leaning towards the purchase of a moderately priced but good-quality, adjustable driver, a decent Hybrid or two (maybe 3H/4H), and a full set of decent irons (3-PW), plus an added wedge or two (AW/SW). Your thoughts on this approach? And please, feel free to rage away - I don't offend too easily. Am I stupid-crazy to go this way?
-
NEW MEMBER INTRO: BEGINNING GOLFER FROM HONOLULU
Watermark replied to Watermark's topic in Welcome, Everyone
Hi Rick, Thanks for the nice greeting and for the quick pointers on clubs. To answer your questions, the wife and I lived in Arizona for many years, so that's where she played the bulk of her golf, but we've been back in Hawaii now for more than 10-years, and we play whatever course(s) we can. She and her dad are (were) both great golfers, but I suck at golf, so we try to stick to the slower, low-key courses like the small executive course over on Kaneohe Bay or the links in Waimanalo. Regarding clubs, I've been trying to do my homework by researching them on-line, and from what I've learned so far, it sounds like best clubs of any one type or variety (i.e., irons, woods or drivers) are each made by different manufacturers, meaning that a good set will probably be comprised on clubs made by an array of different manufacturers. In other words, Taylormade might make the best overall drivers, while Ping might be recognized as making the best irons, etc., etc., meaning that if I buy "new", I should probably plan on making up a set from mixed brands. I'll be honest and say that I don't like the thought of buying something used. I know it makes perfect sense to do so for a wide range of reasons, but I'm skeptical about whether I'll get the best "fit" in the best brands from the used marketplace, so for this reason, I'm kinds committed to buying "new". Anyway, thanks again for your contribution here and best of luck to you there in Florida. Aloha -
Greetings Folks, I haven't been able to locate a section dedicated specifically to "Beginners", but I've posted a detailed Intro under the "Welcome, Everyone" section, so there's more information there if needed. Anyway, I'm a relative beginner to golf with a need for some new clubs, so I guess I'll start here. I've played a few rounds of golf with rental clubs in recent weeks, but for several key reasons, I'd like to start taking the game a bit more seriously, so I'm going to make the investment in a new set of clubs. Basically, I'd just like to get some of 'beginner' questions answered on the design, fitting and selection of new clubs, before I go exposing myself to any significant blind (i.e., on-line) purchases or to any retail sales people. I'm talking here about things like . . . 1) What are some of the better brands of irons, woods and drivers I should look for? 2) Should I focus on metal or graphite shafts? 3) At 6' 3" and 245 lbs, should I focus on regular, stiff or so-called senior flex? And what about overall shaft length? Any suggestions or recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
-
Greetings All, Thought I'd drop by here first for a quick Intro before I start posting any 'beginner' questions. I'm a 61-year old "semi"-active veteran and father of two adult boys, with lots of different interests (e.g., ocean sports, guitar, hockey and early-model Harley's, and to be honest, I've never really played much golf. However, the wife has been playing now for many-many years, mostly with her Dad whom she recently lost, and I kinda enjoy the game (to the extent that a beginner can?), so its high-time for me to step-up. As time permits, I've been accompanying her to the driving range now and again, even played a couple of rounds with her over this past few months, but the rental clubs are typically terrible in quality, so I think its time to focus on purchasing a new set of clubs. I firmly believe that decent clubs will improve my level of commitment and enthusiasm. Hence, that'll be my first step, and that's probably where my initial postings here will focus. Please keep in mind that I'm an absolute beginner, but I'm talking about things like . . . 1) What are some of the better brands of irons, woods and drivers I should look for? 2) Should I focus on metal or graphite shafts? 3) At 6' 3" and 245 lbs, should I focus on regular, stiff or so-called senior flex? And what about overall shaft length? Basically, I'd like to get some of these 'beginner' questions answered before I go exposing myself to any significant blind (i.e., on-line) purchases or to any retail sales people. Translation? I'd like to avoid making any huge mistakes, if possible. Cheers! And thanks for listening!