Jump to content

MelloYello

Advanced Members
  • Posts

    4,281
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MelloYello

  1. SoTS is a pretty widely referenced but I've never read it. There's some interesting videos on Baudrillard I've seen. They seem pretty spot on. I've read my fair share of DFW. Little depressing for my taste. And don't get me started on 2-irons. They pretty much signal the owner is a Champion at Life. Speaking of which, if you haven't watched CPG's Greg Norman Essay vid, do it now!
  2. Such philosophical ideas are over my head. I'm a lowly engineer, a cubicle jockey. The kind of guy important CEOs hire/fire everyday.
  3. LOL, most obvious troll ever. 4-line post referencing a political figure, LOL. Yeah, that's real! Mr. Gorbachev...shut DOWN this thread!
  4. You're suggesting that people here (myself included) do that. That's offensive to me and everyone else that you believe you can cast out those kinds of absurd projections and that we here won't take great offense. It's as if you assume I'm guilty and that I'm on the hook to prove to you I'm a nice person. That's just offensive dude. You assumed the worst about me after mis-reading what I wrote. And you did the same to someone else. I should be nice about that? Really? Really?!
  5. We're closer to agreeing that not although I kind of think it's unrealistic to consider what happens in Canada to be reality. Nobody cares about Canada. Do you think the LPGA should in general toughen up the rough at more events? The reason I ask is that I'm sympathetic to the idea that course setup helps dictate who wins. I wonder if ball-strikers like Megan Khang wouldn't benefit from tougher setups? I think the LPGA has room to increase difficulty. I'm not sure they want to do that though. It might bring crappy putters like Lexi and Carlotta even more into the fray of being competitive each and every week. That's hard to watch. Where do you stand on that issue? Would it make the LPGA worse? Better? No difference?
  6. I will admit that for some reason I stopped tuning in a few years ago. Other than the Majors, I just find the PGA Tour boring these days. So many of these guys either let you down (Rory), are overhyped (Rickie, Spieth) or just aren't that likable (Brooks, Bryson). I just don't really find the PGA Tour compelling these days. There's more reason not to like a lot of these guys (Reed).
  7. Is there any formal process for buying here? I know on Reverb they act as a 3rd party holding the money until the buyer receives / approves the product. I know on Ebay I've had a couple returns lately that went shockingly well. So longs as tracking info is provided things go smoothly and disputes are really nicely coordinated. I've been on both sides of that. Worst case, you talk to a real human!
  8. Eh, don't be yelling RoG at the family. Now you sound nuts, LOL. The last thing you want to do is over-react and I like that you polled the audience on this one. I remember similar instances when I was a kid. The punishments were always personal. I'd have to go without something for awhile or give up my favored baseball glove in favor of my back-up or something. Then again, I never cheated which is a strangely anti-social offense. I had a big mouth as a kid and so I got a lot of spankings (which I deserved!). That's easy. Selecting a punishment for cheating seems very challenging. In a way, it's more complicated, particularly if your son knowingly cheated. My hunch is that this was a personal sin and thus the punishment needs to be personal as well. I would be careful not to shame your son in front of his friends, especially the girl. There's a lesson to be learned but you don't want to unnecessarily humiliate him. I would tell your son to DQ himself. Have him report that he "accidentally" had it on. If you're confident he really knew, do him the favor of keeping it between you two this time. People make mistakes. People do things as kids they look back on with shame. No need to make this bigger than it is.
  9. If you don't want to answer my question, that's fine. But don't ask me to keep repeating it. I didn't say she shouldn't be allowed. That's absurd. I'm asking whether you think the test is being made too easy in certain areas (i.e. course conditions) if an 11yo is passing the test of qualification. What are you testing that an 11yo has the answer? Does an 11yo girl have the physical tools to compete against the world's elite? Would we feel good handing a US Open title to an 11yo? What would it say about the physical difficulty of the game should an 11yo girl win? And if you're so confident that an 11yo isn't going to win, then why is she there? How'd she get in? Was her qualifier not demanding enough? You said the test should be open to all and fair. Open-to-all is the format. Fairness is a Rules-of-Golf conversation. We're not discussing either one of those technical points. I think an 11yo Amateur winning the U.S. Open would be catastrophic. That'd be indescribably embarrassing to the sport to have that happen.
  10. Great points! There's absolutely a no-man's land between "short game" and "distance wedges."
  11. Take my advice with a grain of salt because I'm not scratch, but I'd put my touch with a 60o up against any scratch with money on the line. I may not be able to make the 3- or 5-foot putt but I feel as though I can scramble to those distances from anywhere, LOL. It's one of the few things I'm consistently way above average at in my personal game. I won't win every bet but I'll come out in the black so long as we don't actually have to putt out, LOL. #1 I think shot selection is all about balance and moderation. I agree with picking the safer shot most of the time. On the one hand, a good short gamer will prefer the safer shot, but don't get it twisted. They aren't going to select 10 different shots for 10 different situations either just because those were the 10 safest options. If you're more familiar with one type of shot, there's a natural bias there (and that's okay). #2 Dial yourself in with 1 club and use the others only when you have to. My 60o is my main short game tool. I use my 56o when I face a long chip or when I want more bounce. I'm not a big believer in using a large number of clubs unless you're really far from the pin. Most of the time when we miss greens we're (somewhat) short-sided so I question anyone that doesn't use a 56o or 60o as their primary tool. Again, if a pitch-and-run is your go-to you're either really far from the flag or you just shouldn't be giving advice. #3 Learn to use the bounce and control the shot via the release. One of the reasons I love my 60o is that I can do everything with it. I can smash it 100-yds. I can swing smooth at 90-yds. I can take a little off at 70- or 80-yds. I can use a punch, knock-down or big lob from 40- or 50-yds. Then on shorter shots I can vary the face angle as well as AoA to generate various types of impact conditions for chips, pitches, lob and flops. When you have one club that so easily generates all those different shots there's very little reason to try and force other clubs into the mix. Look at the Pros: they all lean primarily on their LWs. Once you feel like you can hit all different types of shots you can rely on your lie-reading abilities and risk-tolerance to select a given shot. Maybe you go high or low? Maybe you fall back to the lower lofted wedge if you're unsure? You've got options. #4 If you're doing all the above, proximity all comes down to touch. Same as lag putting.
  12. This topic always reminds me of Death, a band who's 1993 album was titled Individual Thought Patterns. Remember that your brain is just a pattern recognition machine. You teach it what to do and how to react. The fact it (and by extension you) tend towards certain behaviors is only because you've taught it to do that. You've indulged in certain behaviors over and over. If you want to control your reactions and emotions more, you simply have to start doing so more often. Eventually you'll get used to it. Like almost all human behavior, we're simply talking about routine & habit. I promise you that almost all calm golfers probably started as people who routinely got upset and angry.
  13. Haha....30 seconds is a long time, LOL. I would shorten that to 5 seconds. A reaction is fine but everything beyond the initial reaction is completely controllable. If you're still cussing at yourself 30-seconds after a shot, you're officially PO'd, haha. Agree on the last point, too. Nothing worse than other people trying to pick you up when you aren't down. That's just insulting. My high-handicap friends do that all the time. I have to be extra-polite around them sometimes. I don't think they can quite fathom how someone can hit the green and still be unsatisfied with a shot. That's a good reminder to be happy though.
  14. I don't like to use phrases like "choker" personally. There's usually more than nerves at play. Swing mechanics and natural tendencies play a big role. I find that more interesting but it's not a lie that some players choke in high-pressure moments. We have to be fair. We can't coddle these athletes. They compete in public tournaments, win hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars and even get sponsorship deals that increase their fame and notoriety. They chose to be on the pedestal. I think it's 100% fair to critique how people played and it's unrealistic to expect that entertainment (which sports are) won't be critiqued.
  15. Dude, I've been 100% clear as have others. You've misinterpreted posts by 2 different people and responded with snark. I don't think anyone in our society looks down on service workers. It's pessimistic of you to project those kinds of attitudes onto other people. It demonstrates a real lack of faith in humanity to think you can find that kind of meanness and hostility here. Again, that kind of reading suggests more about what you're looking for than what content may be present in the posts.
  16. Haha, I figured. I want to be 100% clear. I would never be critical of anyone who fairly qualified. That's ridiculous. But questioning the asymmetry and whether it's fundamentally healthy for the system to have 11yo qualifying is valid. I think a major should be tough and it's hard for me to believe an 11yo has what it takes to be the best in the world for even 1 week. Then again, this is a distinctly golf-specific issue so maybe I should be okay with it? Maybe it's just one of the things that makes golf unique among the "physical" sports? It just strikes me as very strange-looking.
  17. Stop making points about general scoring. No one's talking about US Open scoring averages. WTF?
  18. Well, first off, F the media. Who cares about them? They're insufferable. And secondly, why does it matter how old someone is? Who cares?! Sports should be about the accomplishment and how much a person was in control of that accomplishment. Making a hole-in-one is great. I've done it. It was lucky. Moe Norman has 17, presumably recorded in competition. Who knows how many else? So he's obviously better. It's great to win 1 major. Tiger won 4 in a row. Clearly he's better than most. This preoccupation with age though. I don't care for it.
  19. Service jobs do suck, bro. They're the epitome of how we as a culture have decided there's a cut-off for who gets even a shred of dignity and peace. Are you friends with anyone who works in the service industry? It's hell. I know this might be a shocker, but the public is awful. Most people would judge a $55M/yr job in sports to be "better" than working in the service industry, even if that person had to answer tough questions post-round. You took issue with someone who made that point earlier.
  20. Btw, who's Stacy? Stacy Lewis? I'm guessing there a story?
  21. Eh...you're skirting the real question here. It's not about fairness. It's about the test in general. Of course the test should be open to everyone and the same rules should apply to all but that's not the question. Why could an 11 or 12-yo boy not qualify for a PGA event? Why do we know that's never going to consistently happen? The answer is obvious. He doesn't have the physical strength nor the distance at that point, so why do we so easily accept that 11 or 12yo girls do? Does it not suggest that we ought to be setting up LPGA courses tougher so that 11 and 12yo's find it too hard? And if we're so quick to defend 12yo girls and their right to compete, why aren't we clamoring to see more 12yo boys get into US Opens?! I think it's a fair question. Maybe I'm ignorant. But it's an interesting question from my perspective. Why the asymmetry in the male and female games?
  22. Absolutely. And to go a step farther, I'd like to see tough layouts like this more often on the LPGA, if only to see who chokes and who doesn't. As an example, Angel Yin got into contention but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that nobody thought for a second she'd get it across the finish line. She just doesn't have the nerve like Nasa (or apparently Yuka). I prefer to see that kind of nerve win tournaments. It'd be nice to see a few more "tough" layouts / setups deployed throughout the year. I think this might also reduce the bias towards young players being able to go low on "resort course" setups which is often the derogatory phrase used to describe LPGA venues. That may be condescending but there's some truth to it.
×
×
  • Create New...