Mac62

I don't put a lot of stock in the polls at this point, we're way too far removed from the elections (and even the party nominations) for them to have much relevance. It would be akin to doing a Fantasy Football draft for the following season in March. Even so, Carson does seem to be gaining traction. Maybe a combination of the right demographics and people wanting to depart from 'politics as usual'? He seems to be a very intelligent, articulate and highly thoughtful man. From what I've seen so far, he appears to be pretty extreme right wing, but without all the bluster, ego and vitriol of Trump. Not too hard to see how he could have a much wider appeal than The Donald, especially in the minority and female voting blocs.

I'm inclined to vote "No" because with every new club released, the manufacturers seem to claim an additional 10-15 yards - so within a few years we should all be pounding out 500 yard drives without any extra effort! Joking aside, I agree that TaylorMade and Callaway seem to be the guiltiest parties. I lose track of time because I don't closely follow the latest and greatest clubs and surrounding hoopla, but sometimes it almost seems like TaylorMade is releasing a new driver every other month. I don't even think about resale value of my clubs, but for somebody who does I'm sure it's aggravating that your driver is third-generation old almost before you have the shrink wrap peeled off of it!

Without a doubt. I was just referring to the penalties in terms of overall team discipline (or lack thereof). Yeah, head coaches don't keep their jobs by going 1-15 but having minimal penalties, that's not much to hang your hat on! (BTW, in case it wasn't clear, that response wasn't directed at you. I quoted Duff (who brought up Seattle) and was responding to him, but left your content in there just to retain context. Sorry if it created confusion.)

C'mon now - in all fairness, Obama's administration has been blaming Bush for everything for the last eight years, so a little turnabout is fair play. (FWIW, I'm Independent/no party affiliation.)

Well played, sir!

18.1 > 17.9. A new personal best for me.

I have zero respect for Pete Carroll and/or the Seattle Seahawks. They're a classic example of a completely undisciplined team. They led the league last year in overall penalties and average penalties per game (Miami was #30 of 32 by comparison, since we've been discussing the Incognito/Martin situation). Carroll lets Richard Sherman (and Baldwin, etc.) run their mouths like idiots and he condones Marshawn Lynch's ridiculous/bizarre antics. They've been successful the last few years by a combination of raw talent and chemistry, but discipline of any kind is not part of the picture. They're a bunch of loose cannons, much like Carroll's USC teams were. Russell Wilson is the notable exception, but that's because of who Russell Wilson is as a person. If you want to point to the Seahawks as an example of how complete lack of discipline can lead to motivation/success, you hit the nail squarely on the head. But I'd submit the New England Patriots as an opposing example of how players flourish and succeed under very strict discipline (and they're nowhere near a sub-.500 team for the past decade - one sub-.500 season (in 2000), AFC champions 3 times, Super Bowl champions twice, whereas 40% of the Seahawks' seasons have been sub-.500 in the past decade.). I'm not a New England fan, but I do respect Belichick as a coach who knows how to maintain discipline and run a team. He benched his star running back for almost the entire post-season and the Super Bowl last year because he overslept his alarm and was late for practice one day. His comment afterward? "We do what we think is best. That's what we did today." I'd say his motivation and success speaks for itself. His players respect him and play hard for him, and there's probably no stricter disciplinarian in the league. They understand that he doesn't tolerate crap - get with the program or you'll be looking for another team, no matter who you are (or think you are).

Like I said before, there's no doubt that Richie Incognito is very politically incorrect and boisterous. I don't know him personally, but from what we've learned about the whole thing, I'm sure some may go so far as to consider him an a-hole. But I still don't buy it as "bullying". He befriended Jonathan Martin - whether because the coaches told him to "toughen him up" or because he wanted to be a mentor to a guy he saw potential in, who knows? It sounds like Jonathan Martin, by his own admission, put forth a "baller" personality and was slinging some false bravado around. Maybe Richie saw a kindred spirit in that. From reading the thousands of text messages exchanged between the two (and again, I read every one of them that were released by the media), Martin was just as complicit in the whole thing as Incognito was. There was never any indication that he wasn't down with what they were doing, or that he was uncomfortable with the exchanges taking place between them. From what I read, it's not much different than what you'd see between any two close friends who felt comfortable enough to sling crap back and forth between each other. Even the voicemails which were alleged "threats" didn't seem near as sinister as they were made out to be. It was Incognito talking shit, but IMO they didn't amount to real threats. I think where it fell apart was that Martin couldn't live up to the "baller" image he had created. It wasn't who he really was and eventually the house of cards collapsed. He was failing at football (struggling as a lineman, getting moved around on the line and lost his starting spot) and wanted out. His daddy is a criminal justice professor and mommy is a lawyer, so he saw an opportunity to both get out of the NFL and maybe make some significant (lawsuit/settlement) money in the process (a lawsuit hasn't happened yet, but I certainly wouldn't rule the possibility out). Ultimately, the NFL investigation said Incognito and two other linemen (both of whom are African-American, btw*) engaged in a "pattern of harassment" toward Martin. "Harassment" is a little easier to swallow than "bullying", but I'm still of the opinion that Martin was a willing participant up until he wasn't cutting the mustard on the team and saw the writing on the wall. It was a lot easier to quit by claiming harassment or bullying or whatever than it was to admit that he was a big wuss and not a very good football player at the NFL level (see Michael Sam for a similar example, albeit with slightly different circumstances). (* I mention the race of the other two involved linemen only because while it may not have been specifically alleged by Martin, there were strong media inferences that there was a racial component to the entire scandal.) TL;DR - Richie Incognito has a big mouth and plays rough with friends and teammates, but he isn't the ogre the NFL and the media have made him out to be. He had some issues, but seems to have gotten them straightened out and I'm glad he's been given another chance and is succeeding so far in Buffalo. I'd like to go have beers and talk some sh*t with him, he'd probably be a hoot.

Yeah, I don't think the Stuart Smalley type coaches (or the players who require that kind of treatment) last long in football. At ANY level beyond maybe Mighty Mites. Even in high school our coaches would smack us upside the helmet to get our attention, or grab us by the facemask and throw us to the ground if we jumped offsides or weren't giving it our all. They got in our faces and chewed our asses hard if we were slacking off or making dumb mistakes. We never considered stuff like that "abuse" - any of us. They were tough men teaching us a tough game. I lament the era we're in now, with so many soft people who are so easily offended or "abused". "Kinder and gentler" doesn't build character, it makes for weak people with (at best) very tenuous and fragile self-esteem, and no motivation to push their limits because mediocrity is treated the same as excellence. Everybody gets a trophy!

Two words.... Catherine. Bach. (Warning - if you Google "Catherine Bach General Lee", many of the image results are NSFW!)

Good catch. With the majority of the scene that dark and the lightning so bright, it's doubtful that a camera would have the dynamic range to properly expose both.

Make that two of us. I'm not a fan of him at all, but this incident doesn't color my appreciation (or lack thereof) either way. Actually, I was hoping he'd tell all the whiners to pound sand and leave it the way it is.

I guess it's relevant in about the same way that it's not fair to a high school quarterback that he doesn't have five full-grown, 330 pound professional linemen to block/protect for him like Aaron Rodgers does. Or that high school football leagues don't have the luxury of instant replay challenges like the NFL does. That is to say, it's totally irrelevant. High school football players don't play against NFL teams, and amateur golfers don't play against PGA Tour Pros.

I have just about zero interest in movies and watch very few TV shows. Just about the only thing I watch on TV is sports, and without cable or satellite that would pretty much be a no-go. I went to DirecTV only because they have the NFL package, which is about 80-90% of my annual TV watching. I don't like paying the premium for it, but they pretty much don't leave you a choice - it's either that or watch whatever games the network channels are contracted to show, which often isn't a game I have any interest in.

You summed it up a lot more succinctly than I did!

For me it's purely psychological. I know the outcome has already been decided, so it doesn't have the same impact when I watch it later. The drama and tension just isn't there for me and I can't enjoy it as if I was watching it live. One of my golf buddies DVRs the games and if we happen to be playing on Sunday, he tells us right from the start that if we're going to check scores, don't say anything about it where he can hear it.

Pretty much affirms exactly what I said in the second sentence of my post. Boo hoo. I grew up rich and privileged, was raised as a gentle soul, was naturally talented at a game where I could have made millions and couldn't handle it. I created a "baller" image, but couldn't deal with a big, mean poopy-head calling me names. Cry me a river. @saevel25 , I know what bullying is. I grew up in an era where it was ignored, if not outright condoned, and I endured plenty of it as a child. Plenty of it. So did lots of other kids. I'm not talking about big, mean poopy-heads calling you names, I'm talking about getting your ass kicked - sometimes by multiple people at once. While they called you names. There was nobody to cry to back then - your parents just told you to 'toughen up' and God help you if you snitched on the bullies to school authorities. You learned how to deal with it, got stronger and went about your life. I still say that what goes on in an NFL locker room between two mountains of grown men is not bullying, and to call it that cheapens the plight of people who genuinely experience bullying. It's become one of those over-used "catch all" phrases and just as in the fable of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf", sooner or later people stop listening. I don't condone bullying in any way, shape or form, but sometimes things need to be called what they really are - and in the particular case of Jonathan Martin and Richie Incognito, it's affixing a 'PC' label to something that isn't what they're making it out to be. As far as I can tell, Incognito never laid a finger on Martin. He told off-color jokes, called him some inappropriate names (which are pretty common amongst football players), and was generally a vulgar, politically incorrect guy. In fact, he took Martin out drinking with him, got him laid and from all accounts, it looks like they had a pretty good time together (has anybody else read all the text messages exchanged back and forth between them that were released through the press? I read every one of them). More recently, Geno Smith got popped in the mouth by another player trying to collect money from him in the locker room and had his jaw broken. I haven't heard anybody speak out about "bullying" yet regarding that incident. Or how about Dez Bryant jawing and throwing blows at Tyler Patmon during training camp, trying to intimidate the new guy? That's not bullying? Seems to me that there's a little inconsistency in how the label is being applied. I could postulate as to why, but I won't.

And this is the internet after all, where everybody drives the ball at least 280!

Agreed on the bold, although I couldn't make as strong an argument as to whether he's a top 5 to ever play the game. Top 10? I'd say we're getting closer there. But during the era we're discussing here (and the entirety of it), I don't see anybody else who comes close to Phil for that "next best" title. He was never dominant, but he sure hung around the top of a lot of leaderboards.

Welcome to TST! When you have a little free time on your hands, read through this thread: http://thesandtrap.com/t/7771/mini-tour-play Ben was a mini-tour player who was trying to qualify for the PGA Tour and he did an outstanding job of telling his story along the way. Very interesting (and entertaining!) thread, especially for somebody contemplating making a run at it similar to Ben's.

First thing I'd do is check the scorecard and/or ask in the pro shop if they have a local rule about balls hitting powerlines. On some courses, if your ball hits a powerline you get to replay the shot with no penalty. It's always good to read the scorecard on a new course to see what (if any) local rules they have - powerlines, free drops out of tree wells, etc. Absent a local rule, if you couldn't find it it would be treated as a lost ball, stroke and distance. If it ricocheted into the pond, you'd play it like a water hazard - one stroke penalty and the appropriate drop.

Quote: Originally Posted by Fourputt I will never comprehend this mindset that the average player should have all of the same advantages that the pros have. The whole idea is totally lacking in any sort of logic. Then since we can't possibly have that, the rules must be changed to accommodate those shortcomings. It's not going to happen. As has been said several times, it's been tried, the experiment failed, end of story. Why should the average player get the "advantage" the pros get when we don't also get the disadvantages that come along with it? A bunch of drunks following you around the course yelling "Bababooey!" and "Mashed Potatoes!" every time you hit the ball, herds of people moving and talking all around you while you're trying to swing, camera/cell phones going off in your backswing, etc. If anything, maybe the pros could complain that it's not equitable that they have to compete under those conditions. I'm sure they'd much rather have a nice quiet round without a huge gallery and people pestering the crap out of them the whole day. Either way, it's completely immaterial - we don't compete with pros on the PGA Tour, so it's an "apples to watermelons" comparison. Quote: ...If it's a problem for an individual, then treat it any way you like as long as you aren't in a competition under the rules. If you really want to play by the rules there are still outs for you. As has been suggested, on a busy public course, drop and take the 2 strokes if you failed to play a provisional ball. If that doesn't work for you, then there is simply not going to be any answer that you like. I think this solution has been suggested to the OP at least a hundred times in this thread by now, but apparently it's not good enough. This whole thread is just going in circles now, over and over again.

Unless you can find an exception elsewhere in the Rules or decisions, then yes, that's exactly what it means. You're either trolling or arguing just for the sake of arguing now.

He also felt the need to refer to police as "stupid" after his Harvard professor friend got detained by law enforcement while they were investigating a report of a burglary at his residence (Google "Beer Summit").

This is the most sensible answer, and I think it's been repeated over and over throughout this thread. The only rationale for making a new rule about it would be to make the person feel that it's okay and they're still playing by the rules.