Tour pros adding loft to putts

[Sand-Save]

[quote name='dlygrisse' timestamp='1311655857' post='3424064']
This is officially the dumbest thread ever.......if you want to bend you putter just do it. What's the worst that can happen, you don't like it and have to have it bent back?
[/quote]



Close thread.

[Manystyles]

I think it doesnt matter what I think but I will say that I think of all the aspects of the game putting is 100% personal and I may read what others have to say but take it all with a grain of salt.

In the golf magazine article I would say the only thing I took away was that he promotes an inside down the line stroke, which does work ok for me. To this day I find I get better control and accuracy using the old style "jabby" stroke.

[PuttingDoctor]

[quote name='rlynham' timestamp='1311614029' post='3421915']
In the latest issue of Golf Magazine they have an interview with the guy who invented the SAM machine. He comments on many different aspects of putting but to me the most notable was what he said about loft.

He said the average putter on tour has a loft of 3.5* and the pros hit up on the ball adding 2.8* of loft to the putter. That would mean the effective loft at impact is 6.3*. I found this surprising and i wonder if it isn't just a case of players compensating for not having enough loft on their putter.
[/quote]

Let's start at the beginning. The author of the article, Maurius Filmwalter is a "self professed" co-inventor of the SAM PuttLab. He is under court order to desist from this claim in Germany. Science & Motion did not pursue this in US court.
I believe that he also claimed to be the co-inventor of TOMI but again his name is not on the patent.

His claim re acceleration flies in the face of all the PGA Tour testing done with .... a SAM PuttLab. From the inventor of SAM PuttLab Dr. Christian Marquardt, "[size="2"]This is ABSOLUTELY nonsense. Incredible, not true empirically if measuring golfers, not true functionally (squaring up putter face at top speed???), not true kinematically, not true with regards of muscles anatomically work (like springs) etc..."[/size]

Sad that Golf Magazine should publish such unsubstantiated editorial matter without checking the content. A minor bit of the article had a few items of worth but the overall content is certainly not based in science.... from a self proclaimed scientist.

[rlynham]

[quote name='PuttingDoctor' timestamp='1311721767' post='3426469']
[quote name='rlynham' timestamp='1311614029' post='3421915']
In the latest issue of Golf Magazine they have an interview with the guy who invented the SAM machine. He comments on many different aspects of putting but to me the most notable was what he said about loft.

He said the average putter on tour has a loft of 3.5* and the pros hit up on the ball adding 2.8* of loft to the putter. That would mean the effective loft at impact is 6.3*. I found this surprising and i wonder if it isn't just a case of players compensating for not having enough loft on their putter.
[/quote]

Let's start at the beginning. The author of the article, Maurius Filmwalter is a "self professed" co-inventor of the SAM PuttLab. He is under court order to desist from this claim in Germany. Science & Motion did not pursue this in US court.
I believe that he also claimed to be the co-inventor of TOMI but again his name is not on the patent.

[b]His claim re acceleration flies[/b] in the face of all the PGA Tour testing done with .... a SAM PuttLab. From the inventor of SAM PuttLab Dr. Christian Marquardt, "[size="2"]This is ABSOLUTELY nonsense. Incredible, not true empirically if measuring golfers, not true functionally (squaring up putter face at top speed???), not true kinematically, not true with regards of muscles anatomically work (like springs) etc..."[/size]

Sad that Golf Magazine should publish such unsubstantiated editorial matter without checking the content. A minor bit of the article had a few items of worth but the overall content is certainly not based in science.... from a self proclaimed scientist.
[/quote]



Please point out where he made this claim of re acceleration. I see people saying "he said this and it is wrong" but i don't see any quotes.

[PuttingDoctor]

Perhaps reading the entire piece would be enlightening... or endarkening.... opinion. When you consider that we are not physiologically built to be able to maintain constant speed due to the nature of our muscles reacting to stimulation. The term tonus and anti-tonus relates to the muscle contracting or loosening. It is one or the other.

Filmwalters rules just don't hold water 100%

Five New Rules for Your Stroke
1. Stroke Speed
The Old Way: Accelerate into the ball for the best possible strike.
The Marius Way: Never accelerate into the ball -- maintain constant speed.
According to Filmalter, your putting stroke is a pendulum, which reaches top speed at the bottom of its arc and then slows down. If you accelerate into the ball when you putt that means you're reaching top speed after the bottom of your arc (i.e., past the ball). "This is a bad thing," says Filmalter. "Your brain is wired to instinctively square the putterface at the moment it reaches top speed. If you're not at top speed at impact -- if you're
still accelerating -- then you have to make a last-ditch effort to square the putterface. Enter the yip." Filmalter's research shows that the best putters certainly accelerate, but that they do it earlier in their forward-strokes, they do it gradually (they don't "floor the gas pedal") and then they maintain constant speed. "At impact you shouldn't be accelerating or decelerating -- just 'celerating.'

[rlynham]

Again i say where did mention anything about re acceleration?

When Usain Bolt runs the 100 meters he accelerates from 0 to top speed. After reaching top speed he maintains that as long as possible. He doesn't accelerate all the way to the finish line. Maybe you should tell him that he isn't built to maintain constant speed.

This acceleration argument sounds a bit Clintonesque.

[PuttingDoctor]

[quote name='rlynham' timestamp='1311773784' post='3428146']
Again i say where did mention anything about re acceleration?

When Usain Bolt runs the 100 meters he accelerates from 0 to top speed. After reaching top speed he maintains that as long as possible. He doesn't accelerate all the way to the finish line. Maybe you should tell him that he isn't built to maintain constant speed.

This acceleration argument sounds a bit Clintonesque.
[/quote]

? Huh ? As above.... from the Golf Magazine publication.

Five New Rules for Your Stroke
1. Stroke Speed
The Old Way: [color="#FF0000"]Accelerate [/color]into the ball for the best possible strike.
The Marius Way: Never [color="#FF0000"]accelerate[/color] into the ball -- maintain constant speed.
According to Filmalter, your putting stroke is a pendulum, which reaches top speed at the bottom of its arc and then slows down. If you [color="#FF0000"]accelerate[/color] into the ball when you putt that means you're reaching top speed after the bottom of your arc (i.e., past the ball). "This is a bad thing," says Filmalter. "Your brain is wired to instinctively square the putterface at the moment it reaches top speed. If you're not at top speed at impact -- if you're
still [color="#FF0000"]accelerating[/color] -- then you have to make a last-ditch effort to square the putterface. Enter the yip." Filmalter's research shows that the best putters certainly [color="#FF0000"]accelerate[/color], but that they do it earlier in their forward-strokes, they do it gradually (they don't "floor the gas pedal") and then they maintain constant speed. "At impact you shouldn't be [color="#FF0000"]accelerating [/color]or decelerating -- just 'celerating.'

Using the runner and your acceleration model does not hold water. His muscles are in constant action to create the forward movement to move his body at a constant speed or accelerating speed. This does not relate to the golf swing as there is insufficient time allowed. The runners muscles are in action (tonus) then relax stretch (anti-tonus) to create the motion translating to speed.

[rlynham]

Again you have no shown where he ever mentioned re accelerating. The only thing he said is that the putter reaches top speed slightly before impact. There is no mention of reaccelerating. You are just making that up.

You have also failed to mention exactly what you think is happening in the stroke. Where exactly does the stroke reach top speed if not just before impact? The fact that the pros are hitting up on the ball also has some relevance here since a putter swinging upward is moving against gravity while a putter swinging down is moving with gravity.

Are you trying to say that the putter is still accelerating when it is moving against gravity?

[rlynham]

[quote name='gators78' timestamp='1311780212' post='3428454']
[So you're basically saying it's anatomically impossible/unlikely/difficult to maintain a constant speed?

Also, sorry rlynham Hit em Str8 made sense to me.
[/quote]


LOL What exactly did he say that made sense? Every post he made was a reading fail so you will have to be more specific.

[rlynham]

[quote name='gators78' timestamp='1311781370' post='3428509']
I think when he said 0* at impact he meant 0* shaft lean, so yea he used the wrong numbers but the logic was right. His point was you are making an assumption around where you are at impact. You said you have a 4* putter and might need a 6, so you're assuming you're hitting it with minimal lean on the shaft. His point was just if you're that good to know how you're hitting it perfectly level you also should be able to add 2* through impact and create a 6* ideal putt.

Long story short, he's saying get your stroke checked before you assume how much loft your putter should have.
[/quote]



What he actually said was

"So you know for a fact that you hit with [b]exactly 0* of loft every time[/b]?"

I never said anything of the sort.


What i actually said was maybe i should move to 6* because i frequently have bouncing issues at 4* and i am not that comfortable with my ability to hit up on the ball consistently given that my hands are well ahead of the ball at address.

I could be hitting it at .5, -.5, 0 or varying randomly between those angles. in any of these cases i would be better off at 6* than 4*.

Just because i say i might be better off at 6* doesn't mean that i know i am hitting it at 0 every time.

[rlynham]

-If you have too little loft on a putter you will drive the ball into the ground and it will start bouncing right away.
-If you have too much loft on a putter you will lift the ball in the air with backspin and get an excessive skidding action.

My problem has been the former, not the latter. I had been thinking about getting my loft increased for awhile.

And i never made an assumption about being dead level through impact. That is what you and Hit'em can't grasp. You are the ones making the assumption.

Let's assume that i am actually moving up 1* through impact consistently. Even then i might be better off at 6* of loft. I may have grooved a 1* up stroke as a compensation for not having enough loft on the putter.

I would have to go out of state to find a SAM machine and i am sure those lessons aren't cheap.

[Rockfish]

[quote name='rlynham' timestamp='1311780063' post='3428445']
Again you have no shown where he ever mentioned re accelerating. The only thing he said is that the putter reaches top speed slightly before impact. There is no mention of reaccelerating. You are just making that up.
[/quote]

Fer Christ sake

re: acceleration, i.e. regarding acceleration,

NOT reacceleration (as in slowing down and accelerating again)

You're welcome !

[gators78]

[quote name='Rockfish' timestamp='1311789081' post='3428951']
[quote name='rlynham' timestamp='1311780063' post='3428445']
Again you have no shown where he ever mentioned re accelerating. The only thing he said is that the putter reaches top speed slightly before impact. There is no mention of reaccelerating. You are just making that up.
[/quote]

Fer Christ sake

re: acceleration, i.e. regarding acceleration,

NOT reacceleration (as in slowing down and accelerating again)

You're welcome !
[/quote]

Don't even bother, King Skipper over here knows everything about putting.

[rlynham]

[quote name='gators78' timestamp='1311789625' post='3428990']
[quote name='Rockfish' timestamp='1311789081' post='3428951']
[quote name='rlynham' timestamp='1311780063' post='3428445']
Again you have no shown where he ever mentioned re accelerating. The only thing he said is that the putter reaches top speed slightly before impact. There is no mention of reaccelerating. You are just making that up.
[/quote]

Fer Christ sake

re: acceleration, i.e. regarding acceleration,

NOT reacceleration (as in slowing down and accelerating again)

You're welcome !
[/quote]

Don't even bother, King Skipper over here knows everything about putting.
[/quote]


LOL thanks for another helpful post (soon to be deleted I am sure).

If i knew everything about putting i wouldn't have any problem getting the ball rolling now would I? Logic fail.

As far as acceleration goes lol i guess I am showing my age there. I would have never guessed he was using re as an actual word.

I am still wondering what exactly he believes is happening. All he has said is that he disagrees with the article. He hasn't uttered a peep about what he actually believes is happening in the stoke. I guess he is more comfortable sticking to ad hominem.

[gators78]

Again you have no shown where he ever mentioned re accelerating. The only thing he said is that the putter reaches top speed slightly before impact. There is no mention of reaccelerating. You are just making that up.

 

Fer Christ sake

 

re: acceleration, i.e. regarding acceleration,

 

NOT reacceleration (as in slowing down and accelerating again) :rolleyes:

 

You're welcome !:hi:

 

Don't even bother, King Skipper over here knows everything about putting.

 

 

LOL thanks for another helpful post (soon to be deleted I am sure).

 

If i knew everything about putting i wouldn't have any problem getting the ball rolling now would I? Logic fail. Sarcasm Fail.

 

As far as acceleration goes lol i guess I am showing my age there. I would have never guessed he was using re as an actual word.

 

I am still wondering what exactly he believes is happening. All he has said is that he disagrees with the article. He hasn't uttered a peep about what he actually believes is happening in the stoke. I guess he is more comfortable sticking to ad hominem.

 

It's obvious what your stroke's doing Skipster but it's fun to watch you bash everyone that has some disagreement with you.

 

Want something useful? Harvest your crops before winter.

[rlynham]

[It's obvious what your stroke's doing Skipster but it's fun to watch you bash everyone that has some disagreement with you.

 

Want something useful? Harvest your crops before winter.

 

 

yeah it is so obvious what a person you have never seen putt is doing.

 

In fact i went in yesterday to get my putter loft checked and to my surprise i only had 2.5* of loft on it instead of the 4* that i ordered. But i guess you already knew that, right?

 

:rolleyes:

[gators78]

[It's obvious what your stroke's doing Skipster but it's fun to watch you bash everyone that has some disagreement with you.

 

Want something useful? Harvest your crops before winter.

 

 

yeah it is so obvious what a person you have never seen putt is doing.

 

In fact i went in yesterday to get my putter loft checked and to my surprise i only had 2.5* of loft on it instead of the 4* that i ordered. But i guess you already knew that, right?

 

:rolleyes:

 

Which makes even more sense Skips. I'm guessing you KNOW that if you have such little loft on a putter and any decent type of forward press or hands ahead of the ball on a putter with 2.5* you're creating negative loft RIGHT, combine it with hitting down on the ball would increase the negative loft RIGHT, which would therefore cause the hit to be above the equator and the ball to drive into the ground RIGHT and then SKIP. The proper way to correct that would be either eliminate the forward press and/or move the ball up in your stance. But I'm sure you already knew that having never been on a SAM machine before but you could intuitively tell that ideal on SAM is slightly upward, inside to out stroke, which would allow the loft to hit the ball right below the equator and produce a proper roll?

 

Wow, I just saved you a drive out of state. See how easy that could've been Skippers?

[Fourmyle of Ceres]

So a guy shows that tour pros loft plus angle of attack equals 6.3 degrees. And this sets off a multi-page argument between people who have no bloody clue what their own angle of attack might be as to ought or ought not set their loft to 6 degrees. Here's a hint. Measure first, then argue.

Just another fine day on Golfwrx...

[rlynham]

So you can tell someone is hitting down on the ball even though you have never seen them putt? Wow. Im impressed.....not really.

With 2.5* of loft could be hitting the ball on the upswing and still wind up bouncing the ball because the effective loft will still be too low. Looks like you are making assumptions again. You aren't very good at it.

[PuttingDoctor]

Wow, I leave you guys alone for a few hours and the knives come out... I thought I had lost my mind when I saw the re post sorry couldn't help myself.. repost of the re acceleration question. Sorry if I missed it the first and second time. I didn't understand what Rockfish so succinctly said. My original observation I think has been well illustrated.

My original post was to refute in total the article and I only took one of the writers comments to task. His claims as co-inventor of SAM PuttLab are false. The rest ...well I'll leave to you all.

If you've read any of my posts here on WRX you'll remember that I've often said and can back up with science (SAM PuttLab) that it is not about the static loft of the putter but dynamic or effective loft at impact. Limited loft AND rise through impact will produce end over end roll. When you have a rise number measured in degrees which overcomes dynamic loft you will produce the ground hugging roll most are in search of.

Ya'll play nice.

[rlynham]

So what exactly is happening then? If his claim about the way the putter accelerates is wrong then how exactly is the putter accelerating into impact?

[Rockfish]

[quote name='rlynham' timestamp='1311818386' post='3430186']
So what exactly is happening then? If his claim about the way the putter accelerates is wrong then how exactly is the putter accelerating into impact?
[/quote]

Wellllllllllllllll,,,,,

I have absolutely ZERO formal training but in the past, when beginners (e.g. at work) asked me some things about golf (since they knew I played a lot and was a low handicapper), one of the things I told them is "There is only ONE unique thing about every golf shot you will ever hit. From the shortest putt to the longest drive the clubhead should be [u]accelerating[/u] as it hits the ball." NOT "going fast" but accelerating, i.e. picking UP speed.

Now, if this guy who wrote the article suggest the clubhead picks up speed and then levels off to a constant speed through the ball, *I* would ask you if there is ANY other stroke you make where you do this same thing ? Think of the driver - do you start it, pick up speed and level off as you strike the ball ? No freakin' way.

It is similar, although not exactly the same, as deceleration. And we ALL know "Decel is DEATH". When you decel, you bring all those twitchy little finger and wrist muscles into the equation actually trying to SLOW DOWN the clubhead and you RUIN the swing. Absolutely, unequivocally, DEATH to the stroke.

It seem to me accelerating the putting stroke and then SLOWING it down, or better still, evening out the speed of the stroke causes these exact same problems. You are ACCELERATING the clubhead and THEN slowing it's speed BEFORE you hit the putt. I don't see how this could be ANY good at all,,,,,,,,,, but maybe that's just me.

[rlynham]

That makes sense in theory. However there is a problem. When you start your forward stroke with the putter the stroke is going down with the force of gravity. After the bottom of the arc the putter is moving up, against the force of gravity. It seems logical to me that the putter would reach it's top speed at the bottom of the arc.

I also fail to see the significance of the entire acceleration discussion. So what if the putter reaches it's top speed and inch before the ball. I didn't understand why his article started with this "revelation" since it seems like a pretty insignificant point. it isn't like people are going to start thinking about reaching their top speed an inch sooner.

If i am reading PD's post correctly regarding loft he seems to be saying that you have to hit up on the ball to get a good roll. In other words if a robot was programmed to hit the ball at 0* every time and was using a putter with 6.3* loft then the robot wouldn't get as good a roll as another robot hitting up on the ball 2* using a putter with 4.3* of loft.

[Jc0]

[quote name='rlynham' timestamp='1311823008' post='3430365']
That makes sense in theory. However there is a problem. When you start your forward stroke with the putter the stroke is going down with the force of gravity. After the bottom of the arc the putter is moving up, against the force of gravity. It seems logical to me that the putter would reach it's top speed at the bottom of the arc.

I also fail to see the significance of the entire acceleration discussion. So what if the putter reaches it's top speed and inch before the ball. I didn't understand why his article started with this "revelation" since it seems like a pretty insignificant point. it isn't like people are going to start thinking about reaching their top speed an inch sooner.

If i am reading PD's post correctly regarding loft he seems to be saying that you have to hit up on the ball to get a good roll. In other words if a robot was programmed to hit the ball at 0* every time and was using a putter with 6.3* loft then the robot wouldn't get as good a roll as another robot hitting up on the ball 2* using a putter with 4.3* of loft.
[/quote]

That would be correct. Its all about the amount of back spin generated. While both will have similar launch with a 6.3* effective loft, the back spin will less on putting stroke with the 2* upward swing because more force is being directed upwards.


[quote name='rlynham' timestamp='1311681397' post='3424340']
[quote name='Jc0' timestamp='1311655577' post='3424055']
[quote name='whateverworks' timestamp='1311644384' post='3423542']
[quote name='rlynham' timestamp='1311616001' post='3421993']
Neither was i which has me thinking that maybe i need to add loft to my putter. If 6* of loft is what it takes to get the ball rolling well (and i dont feel confident in my ability to hit up on the ball and putt well) then maybe i should have 6* of loft on my putter.

There are many times when i hit what i think is a solid putt only to see it bouncing.
[/quote]

Adjust your loft to 6* and all you are going to see is the ball bouncing more than it does now !
[/quote]

If you make it 6 degrees it will make things so much worse. What you are saying is that you hit down on your putts so you need higher loft to get it out of the impression. While this may be true it also puts a ton of back spin on the ball which can cause the ball to go all over the place. The reason pros hits putts on the up swing and add loft is the same reason they do it with the driver, to reduce spin. Hitting down causes back spin, hitting up causes top spin. What negates the top spin is the loft on the putter that helps get the ball out of the depression it sits in.
[/quote]


Where in this entire thread did i say, or even imply, that i hit down on putts?

If someone was hitting down on their putts then they would need more than 6* of loft to get the ball rolling correctly. Matt Kucher added an additional 8* of loft on his putter so the actual loft is over 10* and i seriously doubt he is getting a "ton" of backspin.

[url="topic/481477-jim-furyk-experiments-with-the-kuchar-putting-stroke-this-week/"]http://www.golfwrx.c...roke-this-week/[/url]
[/quote]

Have you seen how Kucher putts? If you did you would know he has an extreme forward press, he runs the putter grip up his left arm. Go try it in a store one day with a belly putter. You will see the putter face is basically aimed into the ground so the putter has to be bent an extreme amount. He also doesn't hit down on it either. I don't think any pros do. You would never get a consistent line hitting down on it.

[PingG10guy]

[quote name='rlynham' timestamp='1311620831' post='3422298']

LOL reading FAIL.

Saying that maybe i should have 6* of loft on my putter isn't even remotely close to saying that i am at 0* at impact every time.


[/quote]

Simple didactic/deductive reasoning...

pros putter is 3.5 and the hit up with a total effective loft around 6*; you say "maybe" you should have 6* of loft which basically means your angle of attack would have to be 0* to achieve the effective loft of the pros. Your tone was that the article peaked your curiosity into trying a 6* lofted putter to putt like "top pros". Your really did INDIRECTLY imply that your angle of attack is 0.

[PuttingDoctor]

[quote name='rlynham' timestamp='1311818386' post='3430186']
So what exactly is happening then? If his claim about the way the putter accelerates is wrong then how exactly is the putter accelerating into impact?
[/quote]

Okay, sorry if you missed the bit about the way muscles work. We are not physically able to make a short duration motion that is as smooth and flat line in acceleration as Filmwalter imagines. This is just the way muscles respond to the stimulus from the brain.

Take a look at the graphic below. This one single stroke. The important part is the bottom right graph of acceleration of the forward portion of the stroke. The putter quickly comes up in acceleration value and then though it levels off some it does not flat line. You see an increasing value in the plateau of acceleration through impact. This is extreme and not typical of a tour stroke but I want you to see how the acceleration line varies.

Now it is important to understand that the conversation here is about acceleration NOT speed. See the speed graph at the top right for the forward stroke. The notch is impact. This is where the ball interferes with forward momentum for a fraction of a millisecond.

[PuttingDoctor]

Now back to the original topic of loft AND rise...

PLEASE! Do Not HIT UP On The Ball!! I repeat...PLEASE! Do Not HIT UP On The Ball.

Rise is a product of the vertical profile of the stroke and happens naturally. Rise is influenced by ball placement and shoulder cant. It can be influenced by the golfer trying to hit up on the ball but this action is often the kiss of death as it is not natural and requires precise timing.

Note the information supplied by the SAM PuttLab regarding static loft, shaft angle at impact re: add loft or deloft, dynamic loft, angle of attach, predicted launch angle AND ball roll profile.

The left side of the graphic shows in this case a ball too far back in stance. The angle of attach is positive but minor, the shaft angle is adding loft, the ball roll will be back spin.

In this case moving the ball up in stance will create rise 1 inch = 1 degree. However the hands must move forward with the ball position and should return to neutral or deloft in order to create a top spin profile.

[rlynham]

"Okay, sorry if you missed the bit about the way muscles work. "

I didn't miss it I just don't think it is relevant to the question at hand. He was not commenting on our muscles he was commenting on the head of a putter. the head of a putter is influenced by more than just our muscles.

If you held the top of the club with just the tip of you fingers and someone pulled the head of the putter back and let go the putter would swing forward due to gravity with no effort on your part.

"
Rise is a product of the vertical profile of the stroke and happens naturally. "

So if i am reading this right then the launch angle will automatically be greater than the loft at impact. If i hit a putt with a perfectly level approach and my putter has 4* of loft then the actual launch will be greater than 4*, correct?

What is the best effective loft at impact to insure a good roll? And what is the deal with the loft comments in the article that say tour pros are hitting up 2.8* at impact? That is a pretty big issue to me.

"
The left side of the graphic shows in this case a ball too far back in stance. The angle of attach is positive but minor, the shaft angle is adding loft, the ball roll will be back spin.
"

I don't understand what this means. If the ball was too far back in his stance wouldn't he be hitting down on the ball and delofting the club?

[Mizgoodie]

"I don't understand what this means" why are you calling out every trying to help with the reading fail and you can't understand the samm putting reports.that your arguing or basing this on...





if your ball is way back in your stance you would have to manipulate the stroke to hit up on it not to hit it in the ground.. diaster waiting to happen

[rlynham]

[quote name='Mizgoodie' timestamp='1311856277' post='3430819']
"I don't understand what this means" [b]why are you calling out every trying to help[/b] with the reading fail and you can't understand the samm putting reports.that your arguing or basing this on...





if your ball is way back in your stance you would have to manipulate the stroke to hit up on it not to hit it in the ground.. diaster waiting to happen
[/quote]


What are you talking about? I said point blank that i didn't understand what he was saying. How is that arguing? I am just trying to understand what is going on.