3jacker

There will be a lot of turnover. Many of the employees here in Orlando will opt out of the move. Would be interesting to see if they adjust their (already very low) compensation to entice more to move versus just rehire up there.

I find it funny that some types don't find it funny.

He is a lot smaller looking than back in the day. Except his stache - it's flourishing.

Working Furyk's bag. Still going strong.

3* of bounce can't be harder to learn than flying a 400+ hp super-light biplane w/highly modified control surfaces I reckon

Going to API on Sat. Or maybe Sun. But probably Sat.

2, maybe three. My current set is the Callaway 2014 Apex MB. My previous set, which I still have, is a set of Hogan Apex Edge Pros. I think there's still a set of Hogan Apex PCs from the late 80s that I played as a kid somewhere in my parent's attic. I hope so anyway. Seems to be a recurring theme there, though I did play TaylorMade for a bit.

Men get distracted. Just look at TW!

I thought this thread was going to be about Lance Armstrong for some reason.

Of the ones on this thread, Korda and HJ Kim get my vote. Those 2 are very very similar.

That's the dumbest thing I've seen online today. Thanks for the laugh.

I'd probably watch a PGA/LPGA team event. Alternate shot format man/woman. Would be interesting.

100 words or less please - Where is this big money coming from again and why would someone fund this?

A higher spin ball is more sensitive to any type of spin. Thus, a mishit shot (face open/closed) will have a more pronounced effect, thus making the higher spin ball fly more off line. A lower spin ball reacts less in the same scenario. Thus the lower spin ball goes straighter. Backspin being spin on a horizontal axis, the close the spin is to 90* then less it is to 0* or 180* and thus the less sidespin. The definition of backspin in this instance means there must be less sidespin. For any degree of one you have less of the other. It's the lack of sidespin that makes it go straighter. The more backspin you have, the less sidespin you have. Their relationship is inverse. Actually you could have no spin and it'd go straight with the exception that you'd get a knuckeball effect. You needs some spin.. I did a science fair project on this and hit smooth balls, balls with a vaseline-coated clubface, etc. It was interesting. Corkscrews, diving quail, all kinds of interesting flights.

Oh that one was brutal. Also good was his search for a new beverage cart girl.

I play golf nearly weekly with someone in the business who opines, and has great influence over, what is considered a "great" course. As in what gets put out in many publications as Top 10, Top 50, etc. Obvious and recurring examples would be the Bandon courses, and in my home state (lately) the Streamsong ones. They are great IMO. But also on that list are a lot that strike me as trying way to hard. I include TPC at Sawgrass in that category. Nothing special about it, I find it over the top and gimmicky. I do agree with iacas that most PGA Tour events are on just decent tracks. Some better, some worse. But man, these days - even just decent tracks are so much better than what they/we had 50 years ago. I doubt the PGL would have access to "better" courses than those that the PGA Tour could... if it were sufficiently motivated. And maybe this recurring them that seems to come up of a premier world tour is the motivation that the PGA Tour needs.

They should report what they see. But who ever thought TV (anything) was fair and square. Peter had a great job with a really crummy organization. I don't blame him for trying to do what he's instructed. He did what he could on a couple fronts - obviously given what happened last year.

Don't know what to say, except I love it when real life is funnier than a parody.

Can't forget these guys. Aside from being who they are, it's a heavy logo. Very serious looking.

^This

2x a month is fine for a new player. You'll need the time in between to hit enough balls to ingrain what he teaches you. You'll be best off reading instruction for entertainment value only. Work on what he is teaching and nothing else.

6* of bounce is very little. I played with 8* for a long time, it was fine but then tried going back to 10* (this is on a 58* lob wedge). Even on hard ground, I like the 10* better. For most places, it's more versatile. For hard pan, I can be aggressive and still have no issue "getting to the ball." And it's much better out of sand. But, it might work for you. It's very personal choice, depends on your swing and there is no "right" answer in a vacuum. But that lob wedge basically has the bounce of a 9-iron.

For the average player? It makes almost no difference, as long as it's round and is a golf ball.

It was waaaaaaaaaayy back in high school. We went to different schools in the same area. He did not take golf very seriously back then. I shot 35 and he was several strokes higher for a 9-hole match. We were close then in terms of scoring. Then something happened to him after high school and he took it up many notches. I think it was the chemical fumes from the tanks he cleaned at Monsanto.

I beat Boo Weekley once. Does that count?