ncates00

I feel pretty confident that you have a big gap between a mini driver and a 9w. And you carry a 58 and a 62? Big gap between GW and 58 more than likely as well. Again, like everyone is saying: if you think you need it, fine. It’s your golf game. My driving iron is slightly a one trick pony as well. However, you would probably do better by learning how to chip. Chipping with other clubs isn’t much harder to do than with a chipper. FWIW, and it may not be worth much, I have driver, 3w, driving iron, 7w, 4h, 5-PW (48*), 54*, 60*, putter.

You better get it fixed quickly. If you don’t, those Ping turbulators won’t work to give you extra club head speed and ball speed. 😏

Maybe. Sure it’s beneficial, but… Absolutely wrong, given the one dimensional component to the chipper vs the versatility of other clubs you could have instead. As others have said, chipping isn’t that hard to do reasonably. Golf doesn’t require a “top class” short game, just a reasonable one.

Do you understand how contagious diseases and viruses work? That’s fine, and people that don’t want to take the vaccine can stay home. Moreover, others also need not be forced to be around those that choose not to take the vaccine. That’s why so many institutions are taking action to require vaccinations.

As @saevel25 said above, why waste a spot in the bag for a one dimensional novelty when you can use any other club in the bag to do the same thing as a chipper, plus have the ability to do the “regular” shot that the club is for? For instance, I’ll chip with most any club in my bag, depending on the circumstances, plus I get to use those clubs for their regular purpose. I fail to see any utility that a chipper offers that I wouldn’t get from any other club, and I certainly don’t want to give up a spot in the bag for it either.

Regarding playing forward tees: It depends on your expectations. If you are playing casually for fun, then play forward tees because you will play faster, have shorter clubs in, and enjoy yourself more. If you take golf more seriously, then you may consult carry distance charts to determine which tees you should play. You don’t necessarily want to hit driver and a SW all day, but you also probably don’t want to hit driver and a hybrid all day either, so you may even consider playing mixed tees as well, e.g., play some forward tees and some back tees depending on the hole. Regarding playing without driver: I wouldn’t leave a club at home. That said, I understand leaving it in the bag during a round when things are going sideways. I did something similar when we played the Disney courses this past week. My driver was great on the range and on the first tee. Thereafter, I proceeded to bomb a couple of tee balls out of play. My driving iron came out the rest of the round. So I get having something to go to in these instances, but you shouldn’t avoid something indefinitely. Rather, have your go-to club ready until you can get to your next practice session and work on it.

I never said this. You’ve created a strawman. Think harder about what the topic of discussion is. This is a faulty assumption. You’re assuming that a little bit of trash-talking is disrespectful. It need not be. In fact, most people only talk to others deemed worthy of the talk to begin with. Therefore, there may be respect. For instance, I talk smack with buddies in large part because I respect them and know they won’t take it personally, something you apparently don’t understand. This makes me question everything you said about you playing other sports competitively. Just because you think golf is different doesn’t mean it is or that others agree with you. Ok? So what? Others do. People talk 💩. If you really think someone saying something as simple as the OP discussed, you need to toughen up. I’ve already conceded that if the behavior occurs during your swing that I agree with you. However, mere statements as the foregoing are negligible. As I said: ask them to stop or, again, toughen up.

Why should a golf tournament be different from any other sport with regards to a little bit of needling and trash-talking? Did you not play other competitive sports growing up? People talk all the time. It’s part of competition. Good grief, you are seemingly hyper-sensitive. As many here have already pointed out, conduct of another, with the intent to distract, during one’s swing is different from mere comments well in advance of one playing his or her shot—like the example we saw with the OP. The former is an understandable annoyance, and the aggrieved person should address it. As to the latter, address it if you wish, and hopefully the other will comply, but you may need to toughen up.

I’ve read many statutes, codes, rules, and regulations in my day. This is among some of the worst language I’ve seen.

For the record and for what it’s worth, I’m not a Xander fan. I just think he’s pretty good.

Maybe. Maybe not. That’s why I said it “could be.” Statistically things aren’t in his favor because, as you mentioned, the field is pretty good. But he’s also pretty good—one of the best statistically-speaking. Sometimes just a little bit of success can spur one on to do more. He looks like he has the talent, so I guess we will just have to wait and see. Curious: is there something in his game or swing you see that you don’t like? You’d know better than I, for sure. To me, he looks very solid. I didn’t know if maybe you saw something he needs to fix, just based it purely on the numbers, or the fact that you don’t like him and that your dislike of him could have tainted your view of him (even if deserved!).

That’s not what I’m talking about.

This gold medal could be a launching point for Xander.

Exactly. Thanks for clarifying that point. 👍 I suppose I left that point out given the context of the conversation, but again, thanks for the catch.

Again, your logic is flawed. There are general rules and exceptions to general rules. Moreover, exceptions do not negate the general rule on the whole, only as to particular instances of exceptions to the general rule. As it pertains to the conversation at hand, “Indian” need not be offensive to everyone in order for it to be considered generally as an offensive term. Most people within the class of people associated with “Indian” consider it, rightfully, offensive. Therefore, it is a general rule that “Indian” is offensive. Those who do not think it is offensive are exceptions to the general rule. This isn’t difficult to comprehend, dude.

A group of people incorrectly called an incorrect term for hundreds of years is likely derogatory. to most reasonable people. Not quite the same level but here is another analogy: you work with people at an office and your name is Bob. Your co-workers know your name is Bob, but they only call you Bill. That's demeaning and disrespectful, unless you have consented. Functionality and common knowledge or usage do not negate the derogatory aspect of words. Black people were called a certain word, it may be construed by some as functional, and everyone knows what it means; but, that does not mean it is acceptable nor does the functionality of the word negate the improperness of the word. The same logic applies here. Please note: I am not going to engage a debate as to the hierarchy of "Indian" and the other, but merely address the underlying reasoning.

The problem with your argument is the fact that “Indian” is not a tribe. Rather, it’s an inaccurate and derogatory term because the folks historically designated with the moniker are not Indians. Conversely, teams named Seminoles, Braves, Blackhawks, Aztecs, Chiefs, etc. are not offensive or derogatory terms to most reasonable people, and therefore, tend to be acceptable names, unlike “Indians” or “red skins.”

I agree with your message, as I thought the same in response; however, I don’t agree with attacking the person, but ideas or statements that he holds are fair game in my eyes. Not trying to be a mod, so don’t “get it twisted,” as young ones say; just expressing my opinion of partial agreement.

This is a very stupid post. @boogielicious pretty much explained to you why it’s stupid. Moreover, your logic in keeping the name, because you hope something offends you, so that you won’t make the same mistake, is some of the most far-fetched BS attempt at logic I’ve seen. It’s like you’re trying to compare the name change to Civil War museum artifacts; these are not the same thing. I’m all for preserving history, even dark and stained history, to do what you’re advocating. The museum is a place of history, and if done correctly, does not glorify nor honor past sins, but does remind us of the past wrongs and the progress we’ve made. However, changing a ball club’s name is not the same thing. You don’t keep a factually incorrect, ignorant, and offensive and derogatory term as your ball club’s name so you can “remind everyone of past wrongs so we can avoid them.” Again, faulty logic and piss poor analogy (which you poorly drew in the first place).

Consider himself lucky or very talented. The world’s best know their faults, too. The problem is fixing it haha

Love this song. Also, this video does a great job showing how us music nerds listen to music. I don’t have perfect pitch, so I’m not as good as Rick, but I listen to music as an active listener like he does with an eye (or ear) on the chords and the individual parts, not just the sum of the parts. Beautiful.

I’m not sure how I feel about the olympics. I’ve never even really cared about the olympics before golf. I think golf is the perfect sport for the olympics though, given its ever-increasing global appeal and accessibility. However, two issues stand out to me: 1) most players don’t care. It’s hard to care if the do not hold the medals in esteem. I get it—the field isn’t the most competitive, it’s not major, no money, etc. 2) Covid is throwing a wrench into everything. Major players are pulling out, stringent protocols, etc. It’s going to be even harder to get up for this—as fans or professionals.

I hadn't heard that, but given the stupidity of people out there refusing to take it (even for FREE, no less), I'm not surprised. It'll likely be upheld too because, while the case law is old, the case mostly on point has upheld such measures.

Mind you, @Shorty, I get the whole “it’s not for you, it’s for the protection of others” part of it.

Dude, calm the F down. He never said he wasn’t for the vaccine. Just because he doesn’t think it should be compelled by government force doesn’t mean he’s not for it. I was one the first people I know personally to get it (because healthcare professionals’ spouses could get a vaccine in my area; my wife is a FNP), but that doesn’t mean I think the government should make everyone get it—even though it likely can do so constitutionally under law (although government officials have already indicated that they will not mandate the vaccine). As for now, it’s still an individual’s choice. If they want to be stupid and not do so, that’s their prerogative, unless their employer demands it.