leftybutnotPM

It's dead-pan humour. It's not slapstick. It's irony. What do you mean? Is what true? It is a genuine competition that Greg Norman has started. It's real. Club Pro Guy is a fictional character who is just making fun of him because it's such a dick move by Norman who is desperately trying to remain relevant.

If it's going to happen, it won't happen in a "decade or so" unless he's 6 years old. People generally reach their potential rapidly. To the OP: You asked for honest answers. Here's my take: How about you telling us what you got your handicap down to after a year? No-one here has a clue what you can expect. You tell us in 12 months. How would people who haven't seen you play have a clue? You aren't currently a 20 handicapper. That's just a number you made up. A "nice swing" isn't really that relevant. You DON't drive it 260 on average. Occasionally you get one that far in specific conditions. Your "short game is killing you". No, your long game is killing you and you don't have a short game at all. You have a shocking slice that you'd like to overcome. You probably don't know whether your father's friends are good golfers or not. Best thing is to play as much as you can and when you practice do it with specific goals that an instructor has advised The handicap you achieve will be part of the 12 month journey and certainly the LEAST IMPORTANT PART OF IT.

It's all becoming clearer now. You have created a Youtube golf channel with one video showing you doing goodness knows what at the practice range and practising grounding your club in a bunker. You have 16 thousand subscribers from a making a "sneaker" video and of course this video is deleted because you are "over it". This, presumably, is what "killing it" on Youtube is. Good luck with the migration of your sneaker fans to a golf channel where music plays while someone wanders around making a mess at a practice facility. To put a blunt edge to it; no, you are not a professional golfer.

Upload pretty much daily. Keep content interesting for your subscribers. Have a couple of million subscribers. Work 70 hours a week shooting and editing. Keep ahead of the pack and be better than the young upstarts trying to knock you off your perch. Rinse and repeat the above for your lifetime. Easy. 😐

Yes: A person who works in a shoe shop and sold 100 pairs of golf shoes last year is not a professional golfer. If your company gives you a car you are not a professional car driver. A Youtuber is a Youtuber. Some companies like to sponsor Youtubers. Professional golfers make money from playing golf professionally. It's really not a hard concept to grasp.

Which why I wrote:

Whose name. Not who's.

You need to research the term "Confirmation Bias". The players you want to watch were has beens or never weres. It is very possible that one of the reasons why LPGA events are not as popular as you would like them to be is that the powers that be tried to push a futile narrative that people like Natalie Gulbis were actually good players and they ignored (or paid less attention to) the outstanding players and interesting characters of Asian descent. There are plenty of "appropriate" replies to your posts. You just don't like them. There is nothing wrong with wanting to see a certain type of player. I don't actually enjoy watching players with red hair, tanned skin, or glasses. I have a a particular set against players with weak looking biceps and small calf muscles. Never liked Huh, Kim or Finau. I think that tall, blonde players in the mould of Johnny Miller should be given preference on Tour and the coverage should represent them more than those who happen to be doing well. Now....does that paragraph seem reasonable? Would I be deserving of criticism if I truly held those beliefs? People "twisting your words" are merely clarifying your ideas.

Not emphatic enough. You need to make the point and repeat it so that it is clear. Also, "huge" is too small a word. Replace it with something that implies ( or, better, makes it COMPLETELY clear )that nothing could be more huge.

That's an interesting observation. Thing is, racists don't like to be called racists, so it's hard to "debate" them. Someone who thinks Asian golfers shouldn't be playing on the LPGATour and that the physical types he is attracted to should be given preference is also an interesting topic for deabte that isn't going to win me over. Sorry. The OP made his position pretty clear. I am guessing that you think that an employer who employs women can't be sexist. Feel free to move on....

Your whole premise is arse up. The point of handicaps is to bring scores together, not to separate them. Handicapped events exist for the OPPOSITE reason that you propose. I mean, you're seriously suggesting that some "rich Saudis" finance a tournament so that a 24 handicap golfer can claim to be a better handicap golfer than a 17 handicapper? You think that there aren't clowns out there who'd manipulate their HC? Methinks you have too much time on your hands. If you want to have golfers competing on a completely level playing field, just turn pro and go and play in some tournaments and see how you go. Your 68 will beat my 73 every time.

in response to Iacas saying: Again - Herkimer's comment kind of proves one of the points that people are trying to make. The average golfer seems to think that the courses they see on TV are "great courses". Many are superbly conditioned. Some are excellent. Few are better than very good. A couple might be great, but no PGATour event is played on a truly great golf course.

It is, but not nearly as funny as the Holly Sonders "Where Are They Now?" episode. If you thought she was vacuous before, wait til you see her now!

Answer 1: Because it is not amateur golf. Answer 2: What form of golf could be worse than a tournament full of cheats with fake handicaps trying to hustle honest players out of their entry fees?

OK - let me make one final post on this as this horse is well and truly beaten. Just so that I'm fully clear on where you stand in the context of this particular discussion. Please indulge me. 1. What they DID matters. 2. Why we THINK they did it doesn't matter. 3. Your (and my) opinion of what they did or why they did it is irrelevant 4. The only relevant discussion is the penalty for the infringement. 5. A person's opinion of the character any of the people under discussion has nothing to do with the thread. 6. Anything beyond that is essentially moot. Is that a fair summation?

The video evidence is conclusive, I believe, but I understand the semantics of the notion of "proof". I get that. Yep - I am assuming intent and I fully believe that they intended to cheat. I could not prove it in court and my prejudice may mean that they would have a field day with me in court. I don;t want to be Suffice to say that it is obvious to many that they both deliberately and blatantly cheated - but you cannot prove intent because you can't prove what someone thought. I am not going to assume that you are playing the devil's advocate or simply trying not to prove something unprovable or making a philosophical point - I get that you are basically coming down on the side of what can or cannot be reasonably assumed. And that is more than reasonable. I am happy to be o the side of Peter Kostis, Brooks Koepka, Cam Smith and presumably many others. And yes.....I get that your critique of my position applies equally to them. And that is perfectly fair.

OK - but I believe that if Reed and Thomson had been suspended - even for a fortnight - it would have sent a meaningful message to players and spectators alike. And I don't think they would have got very far if they complained. Instead, they both persist as emboldened, revolting human beings who we're happy to root against. But I have tp say, it did feel weird rooting for DeChambeau against Reed.

I get that. If I came to Erie and we met and you invited me to play in your group and I did things a few times where you pointed out that I'd effectively cheated and imposed a penalty and I kept doing it my guess is that you would come up to me after a couple of games and say "Lefty, the guys aren't happy with the way you play - doing X, Y and Z after we warned you about it. We think you need to find another group to play with." No?

I knew you'd respond as you did - but it's more than Do X, get Y, end of story. I think they should have been suspended for bringing the game into disrepute and letting the players and public know that famous players are not a protected species. They were penalized for "breaches of rules" and that affected their scores. But the governing bodies are too gutless to call them out as cheats. It's not like they made "mistakes" innocently. There should have been additional penalties for not playing in the spirit of the game, bringing the game into disrepute and cheating. Mickelson should have got a holiday too. The Australian cricket cheats got a year off. Both players tried to gain unfair advantage by blatantly cheating. and in both cases it was BLATANT. They didn't run to the rules guys and say "I think I inadvertently did something wrong". They were called out and the PGATour and LPGATour took the easy way out.

No no no no!!!!! If you use one ball and one ball only, how will you be able to demonstrate superior perception by saying things like: I get about 30 yards roll out with a ProV1 v 25 yards with a TaylorMade Lethal. I find the Titleist Velocity spins a bit more than a TopFlite XL I typically get 12 feet of back spin with a ProV1 v 13 with a ProV1X I have developed a really nice baby draw when using a Srixon Q Star. ProV1s are too soft for me, especially with forged irons. I can get a ProV1X to bounce once and stop dead with any club but any other ball just rolls through the green. You have to give people an opportunity to impress! ☺️

The difference is that the PGATour and LPGA refuse to act. Reed should have been suspended. Lexi Thompson should have been suspended. Not just for blatant cheating, but for bringing the game into disrepute by refusing to acknowledge their errors. Of course it's not allowed.

But Descartes was OK. 😃 DeCartes wasa Rugby player.

Vilips is a terrific player. No-one contests that. History tells us that success as a junior is by no means an indicator of success as a professional golfer. You have absolutely zero idea of what his fate a s a professional is. Hopefully he'll do really well. But historically, he has more chance of fading away than becoming successful. It's a sad but true fact of life when it comes to golf. There are many people on this site who cold name a dozen players who were absolute guns at a young age who didn't even get close to making it on the PGATour. Vilips is one of many very talented young players. Look at all of the final 8 in the US Amateur over the last 20 years and see how many names you (don't) recognise.

I am assuming that this is a joke. If it isn't, you are in need of an education. If you are going to make it on the big tour you'd be 16 now with a handicap of + 2 or 3. That would put you in the company of 1000 players of a similar age of whom 5 might make it onto the Tour at some stage. Most players are not single digit. If you get to the point of being one, you'll be a very decent player and better than 90% of players you meet. Again - I'll say it. Go and see Tour players on the range and you'll know after 20 seconds that you have no chance of ever being in the same stratosphere as them.

If he can dream it he can be it. Are you serious? Next we'll be learning that the person who wins is the person that wants it more. I would be very surprised if "self-belief" was an issue with any of these players.