Shorty

I get that - but a week a go the guy is 3 putting literally half the time and 3 putting everything over 15 feet. I think the relative weakness is self evident. When he sorts out his putting he'll likely shoot in the 70s, but at the moment I don't think he should be shooting 73. That's all I'm saying. I understand that you're saying that if you can do X, you should be able to do Y. That's fair enough. But right now, Y, is holding him back big time. He needs to work on that aspect, not be expecting to play close to par. That may come. Hopefully it will!

I would expect a high quality player to be around the green in regulation and get up and down a lot. I would qualify my statement by saying that someone playing off a low handicap, scratchish, like yourself, would most probably typically be shooting low to mid 70s most of the time with more than 50% GIR. That is not remarkable for high calibre players. But for someone to shoot 90 and have 11 GIRs, the rest of their game is clearly not there for 73. So, @reidsouis incorrrect in saying that 73 "should" be the score. Regarding the game of the person in question, I am not assuming that there is a quality short game in operation - there is clearly horrendous putting going on.

@Shindig - I totally agree with you. If someone is having 40 putts per round and chunks and skulls chips half the time, they need to solve those problems. But 50% of time NEGLECTING driving and iron play is no way to improve your golf long term. Just spend time working on those elements. The fact that a lot of high handicappers waste shots around the green does not mean that everyone has to "work on their short game" half the time. And, as you said, 11 GIR is an indicator of 11 GIR, not much else a lot of the time. Throw in a couple of OBs, and balls in penalty areas and trees and you can expect a score anywhere between mid 70s and probably mid to high 80s, depending on the course. Not to mention are those GIRs really GIRs - is it just 5 and 6 that were "close enough"? To say that 11 GIRs SHOULD result in 73 is complete nonsense. My brother once had a round of 75 with no one putts. He rarely breaks 80. One stat does not imply a score, no matter how you interpret it.

I would love to see how you come to that conclusion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Are you suggesting that if you miss a green you should get up and down 7 times out of 8 no matter where you have put the ball? Presumably, he's not a foot off the green on each of the ones he misses GIR. As for the 50% time practicing putting and chipping, please refrain from giving "advice" that will cause someone's game to regress. You are way off the mark.

Does it occur to you that your friend is not the arbiter of what is or isn't appropriate? He is one man with an opinion. And you seem to think that that trumps anyone else's. You may as well say that I as an Australian, represent everyone in my country and have the final say over anything to do with my country. Funny how this is similar to you you thinking that Florida is doing great on Covid - but then you'd know, so we'll defer to you, in spite of the numbers and facts. You are passive aggressive and a troll. Actually, I don't think you are a troll. I fear you believe your own simplistic arguments. For your information, the Chief Wahoo image is part of an exhibit at the Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia.

An incredible person in every way. State champion in horse drawn ploughing too!! When she was travelling home from the (tragic) Munich Olympics at some point in her journey and she needed her gold medals to prove who she was.

How many women have been timed over 1500m in a pool? Not THAT many. Why wouldn't she dominate the times in this event - given that she is so impressively dominant? How many people have played golf competitively? I'll bet 99.9% of people you see on the street couldn't tell you who Oksana Chusovitina is. As for women's swimming, Shane Gould is the only person, male or female, to hold EVERY world freestyle record from 100m to 1500m + 200m IM SIMULTANEOUSLY. (1972)

I think that the current prices of gold and platinum that they use are reflected in the price. Seriously - what sort of idiot would pay these prices? In @billchao's post for two fairway woods I was wondering where the iron set was. People are paying for a shafting, not shafts. Geez.

This argument is like saying that someone who wins the first two games in a best of three competition hasn't won because there were two rounds and not three.

Yes - 😂

Does anyone remember that photo from about 10 years ago that showed a guy walking across Washington Road with his beginner set of golf clubs on a buggy because he had secured a ticket for one of the practice rounds? It was one of the funniest things I have ever seen. I've tried to find it but can't.

Iacas doesn't need to. The polling has been done by others and the general feeling is overwhelmingly clear. These titles have to go. This is an issue that has been addressed for at least a couple of decades and it is only now that things are actually being changed, rather than merely talked about. You don't get to say that something isn't objectively offensive because it's an issue you don't care about. People are going to decent lengths to prove to you that it isn't a matter of opinion. The fact that YOU don't care is irrelevant. There are a few in this thread who say stuff like "people are too easily offended" or "people are too thin-skinned". No, people care about demonstrably negative and demeaning names and stereotypes and are supporting efforts to wipe them out. Why does that bother you?

Is this the adult equivalent of a 14 year old, when accused of racism or homophobia saying: "My best friend is black and I call him a ******** all the time. He doesn't care" or "There's a gay guy in my class and I call him a *&&^^%^& all the time. He doesn't care. ?????? Yes, you do seem to be the ignortant one.

So.... let me get this straight. You have a handicap of 7.4 maximum. You are at least 55 years old. This is the first "real event" you've played in. You are asking people whom you've never met how you should approach this. Most people in this event have been playing competitively for 30 years at least, I would guess. There must be a back story. Would you care to share it?

I understand the need to protect what people perceive to be their freedoms, but I don't think that there is a problem in enforcing things like the wearing of seatbelts or driving whilst drunk etc. I think it SHOULD be mandated, but am realistic enough to know that any government who tried to to this would become very unpopular very quickly. At the very least I think there should be a sort of "vaccination passport" where it became pretty obvious that being unvaccinated stopped you from doing things you like to do - like going to restaurants, sporting events or even your job, which would be an incentive for them to get vaccinated. I kind of think that the greatest freedom you can have is being pretty sure that if you do get the virus it won't kill you. And there's a simple way to achieve that freedom.

Asymptomatic transfer is the danger. The very fact that this person decided not to bother getting tested because he felt OK just shows that he is an example of what the health authorities are up against. He simply doesn't understand how it transfers. It's like living in the 1300s. I am living in Australia, and we are currently in the middle of a spike that is fast getting out of control. We're worse than we were a year ago. All because our pathetic government was slack in ordering enough vaccines and the insanity of being anti-vaccine has spread worldwide. We are having lockdowns and thousand of people are losing their livelihoods. This is a year after we were doing so well. I get that screaming at people and judging and blaming and chest beating can be (I mean is) counterproductive when dealing with sceptics, but just the idea that someone who is eligible capable of receiving it thinks they have to "research" or even think about getting the vaccine astonishes me.

"probably" should have? When is wife had it? "If" the vaccine "further helps him out"? The guy is clearly anti vaccine. A fool. Pardon me, but it sounds as if you are not 100% on board with the vaccine. You even said that he basically should decide whether he should get the vaccine only if he had tested positive! Why can't these people understand that you get the vaccine to save others, not just yourself. Symptoms or no symptoms. You get the vaccine. Unless you are a selfish dick who doesn't give a sh*t about anyone else. UNLESS your doctor specifically tells you NOT to take it, lest risking your own life. Am I missing something? The vaccine has "helped" many, many millions of people out by making sure they don't die. And don't pass it on.

Are you sure you didn't mean to say: He didn't social distance after his wife got Covid. Due to his disgusting selfishness he refused to get tested because despite an avalanche of information, he couldn't grasp the simple notion that asymptomatic transfer is the most common way the virus is spread. He refused to self-isolate with his wife. He put his co-workers and everyone else at risk of catching it and dying because there was a very high chance that he had it and was asymptomatic. And......to make his stupidity and arrogance even worse, he didn't even take the vaccine!!!! The lack of logic and ignorance astounds me. I'm embarrassed to say that this is someone I know and the fact that he put my family and I at huge risk makes me extremely angry. If not, why not?

I guess it's easier for some people to think that their enemy is a cult rather than a bunch of informed individuals. Saves one the bother of introspection. 🙃

I applaud this for the simple reason that there has to come a time when people are called out for who they really are - even though in this case the perpetrator proudly demands that we know what he is - despite gentle and not so gentle prodding with regard to at most getting a simple education and at the least showing the capacity for understanding simple concepts that one assumes most of us share, but sadly, don't. It's one thing to be belligerent, crude, crass, grumpy and just plain dumb, but to be so wilfully and proudly out of touch is something else. To essentially mock a movement that is designed to create inclusivity and recognise an ugly history and see it as a joke is about as low as it gets. Now more than ever, this sort of mentality needs to be called out. Rant over.

You really can't help yourself, can you? It isn't about what YOU find offensive. You don't get to tell others how they should feel. It's about the implications and stereotypes of these names. How about calling teams "The Slaveowners" or "Confederate Losers " or "Cottonpickin' Shoeshine Boys". Would that be cool with you? I suppose so. YES - the term "Indian " IS offensive. You have to be told this? My God. It is not the same as "Native American", "American Indian", First Nations" person, "Aboriginal" or "Indigenous" person. " I'll bet you scoff at those terms. We get that you aren't offended. That has nothing to do with the issue. I'll bet that you can even claim to know no one at all who is offended or supportive of the name change. All it does is confirm that you live in a bit of a bubble and don't actually understand the issue. This is WHY these changes are taking place. Like removing certain statues and renaming schools which were built or named in honour of some of the worst people in your great nation's history. When you say "we as a country have become oversensitive" you mean you don't like change that symbolises positive and modern reflection on historical wrongs. You are the very definition of a person who is part of the problem.

Once again you willingly inform us of your abject ignorance. It isn't about what you do or don't care about. It isn't about how you personally claim to treat people. These things are happening for a reason. The countdown is on before you use the term "cancel culture". Eye roll. Who'd have guessed that this would be your response!? Amazing.

Basic green reading is not a hard skill to learn - especially if you play on courses that have relatively flat greens. You will probably find that many of your putts break TWICE as much as you think they do. Plan to "die the ball into the hole" - you'll make more longer putts than trying to hit it 14 inches past the hole or whatever some people suggest. On normal greens that are reasonable speed, the idea of 3 putting from inside 25 feet shouldn't even cross your mind.

Pretty hard to imagine that you hadn't worked this out before.:-) If by HALF you mean you had nine 3 putts, that's obviously appalling. If you really believe your handicap is 15, you should know this. Are you leaving your first putts from 20 feet or 30 feet a long way from the hole? Are you missing 2 footers? You need to tell us whether it's speed or accuracy you're lacking. If you're frequently outside 3 feet from, say, 20 feet away, that's a speed problem. If your 2 footers are missing without touching the hole, that's probably another issue.

You're doing it all wrong. You have to explain what you do the way a pro does - and that pretty much means you have to lay up with a 3 wood to a particular side of the fairway, and than hit a 5 iron to the "safe" side of the green and walk off with an easy 2 putt birdie if it's a par 5. No such thing as hitting a driver as far as you can and then seeing where that gets you and from there trying to hit it near the green (because there's no way you're getting there in regulation) and being happy with bogey because you get a shot there anyway. You have to talk as if you hit every club where you want it to go. Remember, there are quite a few golfers who only play golf on a screen and think they "average 300" and suck their short irons "on average" 10 feet every hole and see no reason why this wouldn't transfer to real golf. Be more assertive.