When Equipment Has Gone Too Far

[new2g0lf]

If they are truly better by going -25, how will we know? Is it better than Tiger in '97? Answer at best is it's apples to oranges. If my ball is straighter and Driver goes longer, if my putts role truer because of better tools (which they all do), am I really better? No.

 

Btw, the Stenson win was epic because of the dog fight with Phil, not because of conditions of play & as much I enjoyed Spieth's win, the greens were incredibly slow & receptive.. In both cases, the arena was not much a factor, which is a significant part of the game or at least should be. On of top of that those two events were not the best majors of their years. Not even close from a perspective of player against player and player against elements and course design.

 

If all that matters is the top190 going mano a mano, all's swell. Start talking about integrity, history and tradition, as is constantly done, there's something rotten in Denmark.

 

You seem to ignore courses have evolved and improved. Fairways are cut shorter and wider to encourage pro's to swing away on the tee, sand traps are always raked and the sand is perfect, greens are rolled and maintained in pristine conditions so they roll true. The tools have improved but so have the courses. Compare the course conditions today to those Ben Hogan played on, the entire game has evolved but you just want to focus on equipment.

 

So courses are better, greens are better (spike less golf is big here), balls are better, players have better tools of training (video, computers etc). yet they cannot shape the ball or do calculus on wind and terrain or face same risk/reward to same degree as players from Hogan to Norman had to. They need Duffer Tech to cope? Do not think so. Their excellence is being white washed with the "Tech". I fully believe if these guys had some form of roll back, you would not a see a lesser but see a better display of their talent. Not holding my breath on that though.

 

You guys are obsessed with "working the ball", but most top instructors will tell you working the ball is over rated. They will tell you it's better to learn to hit a stock shot fade or draw and stick with that shot. Even in Hogan's time he worked on hitting one shot and didn't focus on "working the ball".

[Nard_S]

Btw, Louis O. who won both The Masters and The Open pretty much stated that they are no longer great arena's of golf and have not been for decade or more and yes, he blames the tech.

 

Sorry, but Louie O doesn't represent the entire tour, just himself. Tiger Woods won the Masters with a score of 270 in 1997, Sergio won in 2017 with a score of 279, golf must have been really easy in 1997.

 

Tiger pretty much agrees with Louis at least he said as much not more than 2 months ago about balls and equipment. As for 1997, there's little doubt that represents how stellar Tiger was and is. FWIW as "washed up" as some of you make Louis to be, somehow the wee hitter manages to continually do well in majors to this day. Go watch Feherty interview. A guy who's been there talking plainly.

 

Tiger is getting to the "get off my lawn" stage of his life. I will never understand the hysteria over all of this. Golf in general played by the vast majority has not changed. Period.

 

The guy has a fused spine and is 40 and his ball speed is 180 mph in his 1st return after years of injury. Quite a big lawn.

[tannyhoban]

Btw, Louis O. who won both The Masters and The Open pretty much stated that they are no longer great arena's of golf and have not been for decade or more and yes, he blames the tech.

 

Sorry, but Louie O doesn't represent the entire tour, just himself. Tiger Woods won the Masters with a score of 270 in 1997, Sergio won in 2017 with a score of 279, golf must have been really easy in 1997.

 

Tiger pretty much agrees with Louis at least he said as much not more than 2 months ago about balls and equipment. As for 1997, there's little doubt that represents how stellar Tiger was and is. FWIW as "washed up" as some of you make Louis to be, somehow the wee hitter manages to continually do well in majors to this day. Go watch Feherty interview. A guy who's been there talking plainly.

 

Tiger is getting to the "get off my lawn" stage of his life. I will never understand the hysteria over all of this. Golf in general played by the vast majority has not changed. Period.

 

The guy has a fused spine and is 40 and his ball speed is 180 mph in his 1st return after years of injury. Quite a big lawn.

 

Yawn.

[storm319]

The initial costs are much higher than they were 20 years ago

 

This isn't true. Everyone has all these ideas about the past that are simply false.

 

Here's an article from 1997:

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-02-20/sports/9702200103_1_donald-dye-irons-clubs

 

$600 for a new Cally Big Bertha.

 

Nobody wants to admit it, but 2018 is the *cheapest* era EVER for golf equipment.

 

Agreed. Taking inflation into account will alone illustrate how much higher the relative cost was 20-30 years ago.

[radiman]

The initial costs are much higher than they were 20 years ago

 

This isn't true. Everyone has all these ideas about the past that are simply false.

 

Here's an article from 1997:

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-02-20/sports/9702200103_1_donald-dye-irons-clubs

 

$600 for a new Cally Big Bertha.

 

Nobody wants to admit it, but 2018 is the *cheapest* era EVER for golf equipment.

 

Agreed. Taking inflation into account will alone illustrate how much higher the relative cost was 20-30 years ago.

 

That article just brings me back to a time where they tried to put titanium into everything. It was the huge fad at the time. Throw some titanium in it and double the price.

[farmer]

If they are truly better by going -25, how will we know? Is it better than Tiger in '97? Answer at best is it's apples to oranges. If my ball is straighter and Driver goes longer, if my putts role truer because of better tools (which they all do), am I really better? No.

 

Btw, the Stenson win was epic because of the dog fight with Phil, not because of conditions of play & as much I enjoyed Spieth's win, the greens were incredibly slow & receptive.. In both cases, the arena was not much a factor, which is a significant part of the game or at least should be. On of top of that those two events were not the best majors of their years. Not even close from a perspective of player against player and player against elements and course design.

 

If all that matters is the top190 going mano a mano, all's swell. Start talking about integrity, history and tradition, as is constantly done, there's something rotten in Denmark.

 

You seem to ignore courses have evolved and improved. Fairways are cut shorter and wider to encourage pro's to swing away on the tee, sand traps are always raked and the sand is perfect, greens are rolled and maintained in pristine conditions so they roll true. The tools have improved but so have the courses. Compare the course conditions today to those Ben Hogan played on, the entire game has evolved but you just want to focus on equipment.

 

So courses are better, greens are better (spike less golf is big here), balls are better, players have better tools of training (video, computers etc). yet they cannot shape the ball or do calculus on wind and terrain or face same risk/reward to same degree as players from Hogan to Norman had to. They need Duffer Tech to cope? Do not think so. Their excellence is being white washed with the "Tech". I fully believe if these guys had some form of roll back, you would not a see a lesser but see a better display of their talent. Not holding my breath on that though.

 

You guys are obsessed with "working the ball", but most top instructors will tell you working the ball is over rated. They will tell you it's better to learn to hit a stock shot fade or draw and stick with that shot. Even in Hogan's time he worked on hitting one shot and didn't focus on "working the ball".

Spot on. I walked practice rounds with players back in the day, and they did not work a little 5 yard fade into this green, then a 10 yard draw into the next. Did not do it off the tee either. Read Jack's book about why it's best to have a stock shot. I remember reading an article about Dave Hill in which he stated he never wanted to hit a hook. He was entirely focused on hitting a fade.

[Shilgy]

Btw, Louis O. who won both The Masters and The Open pretty much stated that they are no longer great arena's of golf and have not been for decade or more and yes, he blames the tech.

What year did Louis win the Masters? Not that that negates his opinion but... The courses are harder than ever on tour. Pin positions are much more difficult and they don't speed up the greens and fairways because that is easier.

There are more good players than ever before. Which means someone is likely to go low every week. But you cannot compare scores over eras for a particular event. Weather and circumstances have too much to say about tournament scoring.

[mahonie]

Btw, Louis O. who won both The Masters and The Open pretty much stated that they are no longer great arena's of golf and have not been for decade or more and yes, he blames the tech.

What year did Louis win the Masters? Not that that negates his opinion but... The courses are harder than ever on tour. Pin positions are much more difficult and they don't speed up the greens and fairways because that is easier.

There are more good players than ever before. Which means someone is likely to go low every week. But you cannot compare scores over eras for a particular event. Weather and circumstances have too much to say about tournament scoring.

 

Regarding courses being harder than ever, came across this:

 

‘I was a D1 and Nike tour player years ago, but I was lucky enough to get to play in Hawaii this week right after the tour did last week. Now a days tour courses are cut way too short, fairways and rough. There’s no real penalty and the ball rolls forever. Back home I drive about 275-280 yards, here every drive was well over 300 and some over 350 with essentially hardpan smooth downhill fairways. Also for not being able to play in the last month with local weather I had my lowest score of the year. I see much more of an issue with how perfect these courses are set up to score, the rough is essentially public course fairway length and the fairways are like driving range mats. The greens are perfect, quick but imperfections. Courses are in much easier and better conditions than the 90’s and early 2000’s. Mowers back than to cut fairways this short would have been green mowers, rough was 6” long not 2”. Also noticed sand traps no longer have hard surface faces but are now all sand, so being near the front lip isn’t such a penalty specially with the now uphill lie. I think courses have redesigned to speed up play instead of making it more challenging.’

[bladehunter]

If they are truly better by going -25, how will we know? Is it better than Tiger in '97? Answer at best is it's apples to oranges. If my ball is straighter and Driver goes longer, if my putts role truer because of better tools (which they all do), am I really better? No.

 

Btw, the Stenson win was epic because of the dog fight with Phil, not because of conditions of play & as much I enjoyed Spieth's win, the greens were incredibly slow & receptive.. In both cases, the arena was not much a factor, which is a significant part of the game or at least should be. On of top of that those two events were not the best majors of their years. Not even close from a perspective of player against player and player against elements and course design.

 

If all that matters is the top190 going mano a mano, all's swell. Start talking about integrity, history and tradition, as is constantly done, there's something rotten in Denmark.

 

Precisely. Epic because of the dogfight. If either had scored that alone it would have been extremely boring. Id have watched because I like both guys. But let’s say it’s rory. Or Ian poulter at -20 10 shots ahead. I’d go out and play instead.

[bladehunter]

If they are truly better by going -25, how will we know? Is it better than Tiger in '97? Answer at best is it's apples to oranges. If my ball is straighter and Driver goes longer, if my putts role truer because of better tools (which they all do), am I really better? No.

 

Btw, the Stenson win was epic because of the dog fight with Phil, not because of conditions of play & as much I enjoyed Spieth's win, the greens were incredibly slow & receptive.. In both cases, the arena was not much a factor, which is a significant part of the game or at least should be. On of top of that those two events were not the best majors of their years. Not even close from a perspective of player against player and player against elements and course design.

 

If all that matters is the top190 going mano a mano, all's swell. Start talking about integrity, history and tradition, as is constantly done, there's something rotten in Denmark.

 

You seem to ignore courses have evolved and improved. Fairways are cut shorter and wider to encourage pro's to swing away on the tee, sand traps are always raked and the sand is perfect, greens are rolled and maintained in pristine conditions so they roll true. The tools have improved but so have the courses. Compare the course conditions today to those Ben Hogan played on, the entire game has evolved but you just want to focus on equipment.

 

So courses are better, greens are better (spike less golf is big here), balls are better, players have better tools of training (video, computers etc). yet they cannot shape the ball or do calculus on wind and terrain or face same risk/reward to same degree as players from Hogan to Norman had to. They need Duffer Tech to cope? Do not think so. Their excellence is being white washed with the "Tech". I fully believe if these guys had some form of roll back, you would not a see a lesser but see a better display of their talent. Not holding my breath on that though.

 

You guys are obsessed with "working the ball", but most top instructors will tell you working the ball is over rated. They will tell you it's better to learn to hit a stock shot fade or draw and stick with that shot. Even in Hogan's time he worked on hitting one shot and didn't focus on "working the ball".

 

Having a stock shot you can hit with your eyes closed and being able to work it both ways at will are not at all mutually exclusive. Any instructor who tells you itsbetter to have one shot than to try to master All is either daft or he is trying to tell someone they don’t have the chops to do any more than hit one flight one direction in a nice way. And that’s fine. But you can’t paint everyone with that brush.

[bladehunter]

If they are truly better by going -25, how will we know? Is it better than Tiger in '97? Answer at best is it's apples to oranges.

 

Exactly! Whose better, Bob Cousey or Chris Paul? Kobe or West or Gervin or Barkley or Drexler? Wilt or Shaq?

 

These are interesting conversations because there *is* no answer. If you dropped Kevin Durant into the 1974 finals he'd score 60 and dominate. If you dropped Stenson with modern tech into Jack/Tom's duel in the sun, he'd beat them by 15. But we don't do that. Because that isn't how sports work.

 

You don't get spoon fed a "correct" answer about whose better. That is why its interesting that sports progress over time, and why it would suck to roll the ball back. Because looking at a spreadsheet with equalized conditions to figure out whose the best ever sucks.

 

The inability to easily compare eras is a feature not a bug. The tradition of golf is fair play, never quit, don't cheat, the Masters dinner, the green jacket, the plaid jacket, the claret jug, etc... etc... The tradition of golf is NOT the amount of compression core a ball is allowed to have. That isn't romantic at all. Golf is mystic and wonderful because its rooted in things other than the Co-Efficient of Resistance. Those are the historic things worth protecting. Not COR ratings.

 

Evolution and change makes history history. If there was no evolution or change history wouldn't exist - it would just be The Way Its Always Been. Change creates history. Is it your position that basketball has no "history, integrity and tradition" because it has evolved so much over the years?

 

 

youve stated the point ...... drop Durant in the 70s and hed score 60 and dominate.... tech is same .... maybe make him wear all stars or similar.... drop stenson into the duel in the sun "WITH MODERN TECH" and hed win by 15.....take the tech away and it would be even or hed be behind..... you know that the tech is making a huge difference ...and you like it .... thats my take on your stance .... My take is i know its making a huge difference in one way or another and i dont like it ..... sound correct ? if so then we have no beef.... i can accept that you prefer it and i dont... i only argue because there are those that say it doesnt make any difference

 

my beef is that in some cases todays tech lets the less than player keep up with or beat todays Durant type golfer..... in basketball you arent getting any help to beat Durant... you either bring it or you dont....

[bladehunter]

Btw, Louis O. who won both The Masters and The Open pretty much stated that they are no longer great arena's of golf and have not been for decade or more and yes, he blames the tech.

 

Sorry, but Louie O doesn't represent the entire tour, just himself. Tiger Woods won the Masters with a score of 270 in 1997, Sergio won in 2017 with a score of 279, golf must have been really easy in 1997.

 

Tiger pretty much agrees with Louis at least he said as much not more than 2 months ago about balls and equipment. As for 1997, there's little doubt that represents how stellar Tiger was and is. FWIW as "washed up" as some of you make Louis to be, somehow the wee hitter manages to continually do well in majors to this day. Go watch Feherty interview. A guy who's been there talking plainly.

 

 

absolutely.... if you care to hear a 1st hand account on this issue from a tour guy who stands to lose more than the DJ types watch His interview with Feherty.... it wasnt a passing remark... he has a strong opinion on it.... and i fail to believe that a current tour pro would voice something that loudly unless he knew there were others who shared his opinion... If hes alone in this thought hed surely be called out by his peers .... He had no such reservations i saw.

[pinestreetgolf]

Precisely. Epic because of the dogfight. If either had scored that alone it would have been extremely boring. Id have watched because I like both guys. But let's say it's rory. Or Ian poulter at -20 10 shots ahead. I'd go out and play instead.

 

Yep. Its epic because of the dogfight. Nobody cares (including you, based on this post) what driver they're playing. In your own words. What drives the sport has nothing to do with the ball or equipment. Unless you are going to tell me rolling back the ball would create more Stenson v. Phil tournaments (and there is zero evidence for that - there were blowouts in the way back and blowouts now and duels in the way back and duels now).

 

This quote seems to imply that equipment is irrelevant to how compelling the sport is on TV. Which is our point.

 

So courses are better, greens are better (spike less golf is big here), balls are better, players have better tools of training (video, computers etc). yet they cannot shape the ball or do calculus on wind and terrain or face same risk/reward to same degree as players from Hogan to Norman had to. They need Duffer Tech to cope? Do not think so. Their excellence is being white washed with the "Tech". I fully believe if these guys had some form of roll back, you would not a see a lesser but see a better display of their talent. Not holding my breath on that though.

 

I disagree. Norman's greatness was just equipment, he was an insult to what Gene Sarazen had to do. And Gene Sarazen was nothing, just propped up by a sand wedge flange, compared to what Bobby Jones had to do. And Bobby Jones didn't really do much either, when you think about what Young Tom Morris did in his time with a hickory stick - he didn't even have persimmon. Wait, what?

 

*whispering* its impossible to draw the line, so don't try.

 

Having a stock shot you can hit with your eyes closed and being able to work it both ways at will are not at all mutually exclusive. Any instructor who tells you itsbetter to have one shot than to try to master All is either daft or he is trying to tell someone they don't have the chops to do any more than hit one flight one direction in a nice way. And that's fine. But you can't paint everyone with that brush.

 

You can't paint everyone with any brush in golf, but there are a ton of elite players who never go one way or the other. Zach Johnson never plays left to right, for example. He can't with his grip. There are pros who work the ball, but it has never been required for success at the highest level.

 

.take the tech away and it would be even or hed be behind..... you know that the tech is making a huge difference ...and you like it .... thats my take on your stance .... My take is i know its making a huge difference in one way or another and i dont like it ..... sound correct ? if so then we have no beef.... i can accept that you prefer it and i dont... i only argue because there are those that say it doesnt make any difference

 

my beef is that in some cases todays tech lets the less than player keep up with or beat todays Durant type golfer..... in basketball you arent getting any help to beat Durant... you either bring it or you dont....

 

I'd point out that Stenson's swing speed and fitness have nothing to do with technology and might be an advantage, but these are arguments that can't be resolved.

 

I think the idea that modern technology makes it easier to get a tour card today given how many more elite athletes choose golf isn't correct. I do not think there are tour pros who don't deserve to be there but are there just because of technology. I think that's silly, and artificially holding back progress never works.

 

I also think (As you stated above) that duels and drama have nothing to do with technology in the hands. It has to do with human interest.

 

absolutely.... if you care to hear a 1st hand account on this issue from a tour guy who stands to lose more than the DJ types watch His interview with Feherty.... it wasnt a passing remark... he has a strong opinion on it.... and i fail to believe that a current tour pro would voice something that loudly unless he knew there were others who shared his opinion... If hes alone in this thought hed surely be called out by his peers .... He had no such reservations i saw.

 

I don't agree with him either.

[bladehunter]

pine-....

 

eh..i guess.... i knew we didnt have a beef...just wanted to make sure you did... i like to argue., pretty sure you do too..lol i could take either side of this and run with it... im that way on most things....

 

 

only point above that i may take exception to is the chicken or the egg argument with regards to the number of pro contenders coming up.... are there more natural talents who could win with anything or are there more who can win because of modern means... be that club tech, launch monitors, or coaching... I suppose that just getting the ball in the hole with less strokes is the ultimate answer.... id just like to see it done with a less forgiving driver.... i dont care if you leave the ball alone... just take away the 3 square inch hitting zone of the large driver....

[new2g0lf]

If they are truly better by going -25, how will we know? Is it better than Tiger in '97? Answer at best is it's apples to oranges. If my ball is straighter and Driver goes longer, if my putts role truer because of better tools (which they all do), am I really better? No.

 

Btw, the Stenson win was epic because of the dog fight with Phil, not because of conditions of play & as much I enjoyed Spieth's win, the greens were incredibly slow & receptive.. In both cases, the arena was not much a factor, which is a significant part of the game or at least should be. On of top of that those two events were not the best majors of their years. Not even close from a perspective of player against player and player against elements and course design.

 

If all that matters is the top190 going mano a mano, all's swell. Start talking about integrity, history and tradition, as is constantly done, there's something rotten in Denmark.

 

You seem to ignore courses have evolved and improved. Fairways are cut shorter and wider to encourage pro's to swing away on the tee, sand traps are always raked and the sand is perfect, greens are rolled and maintained in pristine conditions so they roll true. The tools have improved but so have the courses. Compare the course conditions today to those Ben Hogan played on, the entire game has evolved but you just want to focus on equipment.

 

So courses are better, greens are better (spike less golf is big here), balls are better, players have better tools of training (video, computers etc). yet they cannot shape the ball or do calculus on wind and terrain or face same risk/reward to same degree as players from Hogan to Norman had to. They need Duffer Tech to cope? Do not think so. Their excellence is being white washed with the "Tech". I fully believe if these guys had some form of roll back, you would not a see a lesser but see a better display of their talent. Not holding my breath on that though.

 

You guys are obsessed with "working the ball", but most top instructors will tell you working the ball is over rated. They will tell you it's better to learn to hit a stock shot fade or draw and stick with that shot. Even in Hogan's time he worked on hitting one shot and didn't focus on "working the ball".

 

Having a stock shot you can hit with your eyes closed and being able to work it both ways at will are not at all mutually exclusive. Any instructor who tells you itsbetter to have one shot than to try to master All is either daft or he is trying to tell someone they don't have the chops to do any more than hit one flight one direction in a nice way. And that's fine. But you can't paint everyone with that brush.

 

I watch a lot of golf, most guys don't play the ball both ways and often get into trouble when they try to hit a shot that isn't their stock shot. Guys like Phil and Tiger do work the ball but they are definitely in the minority.

 

I think some of you older golfers have a preconceived idea of how golf should be played and refuse to acknowledge the game has changed for numerous reasons with technology just being one of them.

[bladehunter]

dont you see the flaw in the slaw there? your examples are two of the best living players on earth ( not counting jack etc) ....and yet you are finding flaw with the method?

 

 

 

edit---- no doubt i have an idea of how the best golf should be played... doesnt mean that because it isnt true anymore that its incorrect....just means that it has changed....in my opinion for the worse.

[pinestreetgolf]

dont you see the flaw in the slaw there? your examples are two of the best living players on earth ( not counting jack etc) ....and yet you are finding flaw with the method?

 

 

 

edit---- no doubt i have an idea of how the best golf should be played... doesnt mean that because it isnt true anymore that its incorrect....just means that it has changed....in my opinion for the worse.

 

It hasn't changed. Nobody realized it before because shotlink didn't exist. They didn't add zone defense like in basketball. The way they play now has always been the best way. Just nobody realized it because we didn't have sophisticated enough tools to measure what the best players were actually doing. Faldo actually thought (and said) he was hitting the inside of the ball. Phil actually thought (and said) that he accelerates on every short game swing. Now we have trackman and shotlink and we know Faldo didn't and Phil doesn't.

 

Nothing has changed. We just have more information about what's actually going on. The veneer has been stripped, so to speak. Working the ball doesn't really matter. Putting skill matters very little and ball striking is king. That was golf in 1927 and its golf in 2017. Its just that today we have the technology to realize/prove it.

 

Its just like Synergy, the Shotlink of basketball. Synergy taught NBA teams that long two point jump shots and post ups are awful, and the only acceptable shots are layups, three pointers and free throws. Until now, teams built offenses around jump shots and the post. Now the Rockets will go entire games without taking a single one. Similarly, there has always been an optimal way to play competitive golf. Shotlink just didn't exist yet so we didn't know what it was.

 

There are a ton of NBA people who hate the "new NBA", just like there are a lot of people who hate this "version" of golf. And that's OK. But its not the equipment, its the *information*. Rolling back shotlink and trackman somehow would actually change things. Making pros use a R7 or whatever would change nothing. That is the point I'm trying to make. You are blaming the wrong bogeyman.

 

EDIT

I think your view is perfectly valid to dislike the modern PGA Tour. I just disagree that its the equipment. I think its the knowledge we've gained from shotlink and trackman about how golf is actually won. A lot of the mystery and mysticism of the "Golf in the Kingdom" side of the game is lost when you have an aimpoint chart and shotlink data from your previous 1,000 6 irons in this type of wind. I get it. I just don't think its the equipment.

 

SECOND EDIT

Very soon there will be no green reading at the professional level. Its very close right now. Your aimpoint chart literally shows you where to aim for every putt on the green. It doesn't tell you how hard to hit it, so there is still skill, but man if you've ever used one of those its like training wheels.

[bladehunter]

dont you see the flaw in the slaw there? your examples are two of the best living players on earth ( not counting jack etc) ....and yet you are finding flaw with the method?

 

 

 

edit---- no doubt i have an idea of how the best golf should be played... doesnt mean that because it isnt true anymore that its incorrect....just means that it has changed....in my opinion for the worse.

 

It hasn't changed. Nobody realized it before because shotlink didn't exist. They didn't add zone defense like in basketball. The way they play now has always been the best way. Just nobody realized it because we didn't have sophisticated enough tools to measure what the best players were actually doing. Faldo actually thought (and said) he was hitting the inside of the ball. Phil actually thought (and said) that he accelerates on every short game swing. Now we have trackman and shotlink and we know Faldo didn't and Phil doesn't.

 

Nothing has changed. We just have more information about what's actually going on. The veneer has been stripped, so to speak. Working the ball doesn't really matter. Putting skill matters very little and ball striking is king. That was golf in 1927 and its golf in 2017. Its just that today we have the technology to realize/prove it.

 

Its just like Synergy, the Shotlink of basketball. Synergy taught NBA teams that long two point jump shots and post ups are awful, and the only acceptable shots are layups, three pointers and free throws. Until now, teams built offenses around jump shots and the post. Now the Rockets will go entire games without taking a single one. Similarly, there has always been an optimal way to play competitive golf. Shotlink just didn't exist yet so we didn't know what it was.

 

There are a ton of NBA people who hate the "new NBA", just like there are a lot of people who hate this "version" of golf. And that's OK. But its not the equipment, its the *information*. Rolling back shotlink and trackman somehow would actually change things. Making pros use a R7 or whatever would change nothing. That is the point I'm trying to make. You are blaming the wrong bogeyman.

 

EDIT

I think your view is perfectly valid to dislike the modern PGA Tour. I just disagree that its the equipment. I think its the knowledge we've gained from shotlink and trackman about how golf is actually won. A lot of the mystery and mysticism of the "Golf in the Kingdom" side of the game is lost when you have an aimpoint chart and shotlink data from your previous 1,000 6 irons in this type of wind. I get it. I just don't think its the equipment.

 

SECOND EDIT

Very soon there will be no green reading at the professional level. Its very close right now. Your aimpoint chart literally shows you where to aim for every putt on the green. It doesn't tell you how hard to hit it, so there is still skill, but man if you've ever used one of those its like training wheels.

 

 

lol... very well put.. I Loathe the new NBA....and in the 80s and 90s i was glued to WGN watching the bulls every single game.... funny too.... my 9 year old is an exceptional basketball player compared to kids we play against..(humble brag lol) .. and I help with some practices if asked ..although i really keep my mouth shut and go with whatever the coach says ( unlike here)....and its still coached like we learned.... no 3 pointers unless wide open and needed.... and position in the post is taught on defense and offense... two drills we run every practice.... pass to the wing for a 12 foot jump shot and passes to the post with a defender on your backside... never ever thought about it being the "old way".... just still think its the "right way".... interesting and disheartening at the same time

[Shilgy]

If they are truly better by going -25, how will we know? Is it better than Tiger in '97? Answer at best is it's apples to oranges.

 

Exactly! Whose better, Bob Cousey or Chris Paul? Kobe or West or Gervin or Barkley or Drexler? Wilt or Shaq?

 

These are interesting conversations because there *is* no answer. If you dropped Kevin Durant into the 1974 finals he'd score 60 and dominate. If you dropped Stenson with modern tech into Jack/Tom's duel in the sun, he'd beat them by 15. But we don't do that. Because that isn't how sports work.

 

You don't get spoon fed a "correct" answer about whose better. That is why its interesting that sports progress over time, and why it would suck to roll the ball back. Because looking at a spreadsheet with equalized conditions to figure out whose the best ever sucks.

 

The inability to easily compare eras is a feature not a bug. The tradition of golf is fair play, never quit, don't cheat, the Masters dinner, the green jacket, the plaid jacket, the claret jug, etc... etc... The tradition of golf is NOT the amount of compression core a ball is allowed to have. That isn't romantic at all. Golf is mystic and wonderful because its rooted in things other than the Co-Efficient of Resistance. Those are the historic things worth protecting. Not COR ratings.

 

Evolution and change makes history history. If there was no evolution or change history wouldn't exist - it would just be The Way Its Always Been. Change creates history. Is it your position that basketball has no "history, integrity and tradition" because it has evolved so much over the years?

 

 

youve stated the point ...... drop Durant in the 70s and hed score 60 and dominate.... tech is same .... maybe make him wear all stars or similar.... drop stenson into the duel in the sun "WITH MODERN TECH" and hed win by 15.....take the tech away and it would be even or hed be behind..... you know that the tech is making a huge difference ...and you like it .... thats my take on your stance .... My take is i know its making a huge difference in one way or another and i dont like it ..... sound correct ? if so then we have no beef.... i can accept that you prefer it and i dont... i only argue because there are those that say it doesnt make any difference

 

my beef is that in some cases todays tech lets the less than player keep up with or beat todays Durant type golfer..... in basketball you arent getting any help to beat Durant... you either bring it or you dont....

You're using Durant as your best reason? Every era had guys that were tremendous ballstrikers, but didn't win much or at all. There is a lot more to golf, as you know, than that stat. I could be wrong but Durant I recall is an old school good ballstriker. Meaning he hits a lot of fairways and greens but proximity on approach shots is not that great considering the number of greens hit. Hitting the ball close is actually more valuable than leaving yourself 30' all day at that level.

[pinestreetgolf]

If they are truly better by going -25, how will we know? Is it better than Tiger in '97? Answer at best is it's apples to oranges.

 

Exactly! Whose better, Bob Cousey or Chris Paul? Kobe or West or Gervin or Barkley or Drexler? Wilt or Shaq?

 

These are interesting conversations because there *is* no answer. If you dropped Kevin Durant into the 1974 finals he'd score 60 and dominate. If you dropped Stenson with modern tech into Jack/Tom's duel in the sun, he'd beat them by 15. But we don't do that. Because that isn't how sports work.

 

You don't get spoon fed a "correct" answer about whose better. That is why its interesting that sports progress over time, and why it would suck to roll the ball back. Because looking at a spreadsheet with equalized conditions to figure out whose the best ever sucks.

 

The inability to easily compare eras is a feature not a bug. The tradition of golf is fair play, never quit, don't cheat, the Masters dinner, the green jacket, the plaid jacket, the claret jug, etc... etc... The tradition of golf is NOT the amount of compression core a ball is allowed to have. That isn't romantic at all. Golf is mystic and wonderful because its rooted in things other than the Co-Efficient of Resistance. Those are the historic things worth protecting. Not COR ratings.

 

Evolution and change makes history history. If there was no evolution or change history wouldn't exist - it would just be The Way Its Always Been. Change creates history. Is it your position that basketball has no "history, integrity and tradition" because it has evolved so much over the years?

 

 

youve stated the point ...... drop Durant in the 70s and hed score 60 and dominate.... tech is same .... maybe make him wear all stars or similar.... drop stenson into the duel in the sun "WITH MODERN TECH" and hed win by 15.....take the tech away and it would be even or hed be behind..... you know that the tech is making a huge difference ...and you like it .... thats my take on your stance .... My take is i know its making a huge difference in one way or another and i dont like it ..... sound correct ? if so then we have no beef.... i can accept that you prefer it and i dont... i only argue because there are those that say it doesnt make any difference

 

my beef is that in some cases todays tech lets the less than player keep up with or beat todays Durant type golfer..... in basketball you arent getting any help to beat Durant... you either bring it or you dont....

You're using Durant as your best reason? Every era had guys that were tremendous ballstrikers, but didn't win much or at all. There is a lot more to golf, as you know, than that stat. I could be wrong but Durant I recall is an old school good ballstriker. Meaning he hits a lot of fairways and greens but proximity on approach shots is not that great considering the number of greens hit. Hitting the ball close is actually more valuable than leaving yourself 30' all day at that level.

 

Durant is like 39% from 30 feet bro

 

[mahonie]

dont you see the flaw in the slaw there? your examples are two of the best living players on earth ( not counting jack etc) ....and yet you are finding flaw with the method?

 

 

 

edit---- no doubt i have an idea of how the best golf should be played... doesnt mean that because it isnt true anymore that its incorrect....just means that it has changed....in my opinion for the worse.

 

It hasn't changed. Nobody realized it before because shotlink didn't exist. They didn't add zone defense like in basketball. The way they play now has always been the best way. Just nobody realized it because we didn't have sophisticated enough tools to measure what the best players were actually doing. Faldo actually thought (and said) he was hitting the inside of the ball. Phil actually thought (and said) that he accelerates on every short game swing. Now we have trackman and shotlink and we know Faldo didn't and Phil doesn't.

 

Nothing has changed. We just have more information about what's actually going on. The veneer has been stripped, so to speak. Working the ball doesn't really matter. Putting skill matters very little and ball striking is king. That was golf in 1927 and its golf in 2017. Its just that today we have the technology to realize/prove it.

 

Its just like Synergy, the Shotlink of basketball. Synergy taught NBA teams that long two point jump shots and post ups are awful, and the only acceptable shots are layups, three pointers and free throws. Until now, teams built offenses around jump shots and the post. Now the Rockets will go entire games without taking a single one. Similarly, there has always been an optimal way to play competitive golf. Shotlink just didn't exist yet so we didn't know what it was.

 

There are a ton of NBA people who hate the "new NBA", just like there are a lot of people who hate this "version" of golf. And that's OK. But its not the equipment, its the *information*. Rolling back shotlink and trackman somehow would actually change things. Making pros use a R7 or whatever would change nothing. That is the point I'm trying to make. You are blaming the wrong bogeyman.

 

EDIT

I think your view is perfectly valid to dislike the modern PGA Tour. I just disagree that its the equipment. I think its the knowledge we've gained from shotlink and trackman about how golf is actually won. A lot of the mystery and mysticism of the "Golf in the Kingdom" side of the game is lost when you have an aimpoint chart and shotlink data from your previous 1,000 6 irons in this type of wind. I get it. I just don't think its the equipment.

 

SECOND EDIT

Very soon there will be no green reading at the professional level. Its very close right now. Your aimpoint chart literally shows you where to aim for every putt on the green. It doesn't tell you how hard to hit it, so there is still skill, but man if you've ever used one of those its like training wheels.

 

You’ve perfectly outlined the issue that a lot have with the modern way of doing it. Technology is reducing the level of skill required and as a result the game is becoming less satisfying to watch and play.

[tannyhoban]

dont you see the flaw in the slaw there? your examples are two of the best living players on earth ( not counting jack etc) ....and yet you are finding flaw with the method?

 

 

 

edit---- no doubt i have an idea of how the best golf should be played... doesnt mean that because it isnt true anymore that its incorrect....just means that it has changed....in my opinion for the worse.

 

It hasn't changed. Nobody realized it before because shotlink didn't exist. They didn't add zone defense like in basketball. The way they play now has always been the best way. Just nobody realized it because we didn't have sophisticated enough tools to measure what the best players were actually doing. Faldo actually thought (and said) he was hitting the inside of the ball. Phil actually thought (and said) that he accelerates on every short game swing. Now we have trackman and shotlink and we know Faldo didn't and Phil doesn't.

 

Nothing has changed. We just have more information about what's actually going on. The veneer has been stripped, so to speak. Working the ball doesn't really matter. Putting skill matters very little and ball striking is king. That was golf in 1927 and its golf in 2017. Its just that today we have the technology to realize/prove it.

 

Its just like Synergy, the Shotlink of basketball. Synergy taught NBA teams that long two point jump shots and post ups are awful, and the only acceptable shots are layups, three pointers and free throws. Until now, teams built offenses around jump shots and the post. Now the Rockets will go entire games without taking a single one. Similarly, there has always been an optimal way to play competitive golf. Shotlink just didn't exist yet so we didn't know what it was.

 

There are a ton of NBA people who hate the "new NBA", just like there are a lot of people who hate this "version" of golf. And that's OK. But its not the equipment, its the *information*. Rolling back shotlink and trackman somehow would actually change things. Making pros use a R7 or whatever would change nothing. That is the point I'm trying to make. You are blaming the wrong bogeyman.

 

EDIT

I think your view is perfectly valid to dislike the modern PGA Tour. I just disagree that its the equipment. I think its the knowledge we've gained from shotlink and trackman about how golf is actually won. A lot of the mystery and mysticism of the "Golf in the Kingdom" side of the game is lost when you have an aimpoint chart and shotlink data from your previous 1,000 6 irons in this type of wind. I get it. I just don't think its the equipment.

 

SECOND EDIT

Very soon there will be no green reading at the professional level. Its very close right now. Your aimpoint chart literally shows you where to aim for every putt on the green. It doesn't tell you how hard to hit it, so there is still skill, but man if you've ever used one of those its like training wheels.

 

You’ve perfectly outlined the issue that a lot have with the modern way of doing it. Technology is reducing the level of skill required and as a result the game is becoming less satisfying to watch and play.

 

Technology has changed the way tour players use the skills. And there are more tour caliber golfers competing. There is no going back. Re-tooling an industry to cap the smallest percentile of golfers is foolish. The game at the local level has not changed. Nobody is clambering for longer tee boxes and not a single course I play in the summer feels compelled to do so, nor have they.

 

Its not a requirement to be a fan of the pro tours to enjoy your golf.

[mahonie]

dont you see the flaw in the slaw there? your examples are two of the best living players on earth ( not counting jack etc) ....and yet you are finding flaw with the method?

 

 

 

edit---- no doubt i have an idea of how the best golf should be played... doesnt mean that because it isnt true anymore that its incorrect....just means that it has changed....in my opinion for the worse.

 

It hasn't changed. Nobody realized it before because shotlink didn't exist. They didn't add zone defense like in basketball. The way they play now has always been the best way. Just nobody realized it because we didn't have sophisticated enough tools to measure what the best players were actually doing. Faldo actually thought (and said) he was hitting the inside of the ball. Phil actually thought (and said) that he accelerates on every short game swing. Now we have trackman and shotlink and we know Faldo didn't and Phil doesn't.

 

Nothing has changed. We just have more information about what's actually going on. The veneer has been stripped, so to speak. Working the ball doesn't really matter. Putting skill matters very little and ball striking is king. That was golf in 1927 and its golf in 2017. Its just that today we have the technology to realize/prove it.

 

Its just like Synergy, the Shotlink of basketball. Synergy taught NBA teams that long two point jump shots and post ups are awful, and the only acceptable shots are layups, three pointers and free throws. Until now, teams built offenses around jump shots and the post. Now the Rockets will go entire games without taking a single one. Similarly, there has always been an optimal way to play competitive golf. Shotlink just didn't exist yet so we didn't know what it was.

 

There are a ton of NBA people who hate the "new NBA", just like there are a lot of people who hate this "version" of golf. And that's OK. But its not the equipment, its the *information*. Rolling back shotlink and trackman somehow would actually change things. Making pros use a R7 or whatever would change nothing. That is the point I'm trying to make. You are blaming the wrong bogeyman.

 

EDIT

I think your view is perfectly valid to dislike the modern PGA Tour. I just disagree that its the equipment. I think its the knowledge we've gained from shotlink and trackman about how golf is actually won. A lot of the mystery and mysticism of the "Golf in the Kingdom" side of the game is lost when you have an aimpoint chart and shotlink data from your previous 1,000 6 irons in this type of wind. I get it. I just don't think its the equipment.

 

SECOND EDIT

Very soon there will be no green reading at the professional level. Its very close right now. Your aimpoint chart literally shows you where to aim for every putt on the green. It doesn't tell you how hard to hit it, so there is still skill, but man if you've ever used one of those its like training wheels.

 

You’ve perfectly outlined the issue that a lot have with the modern way of doing it. Technology is reducing the level of skill required and as a result the game is becoming less satisfying to watch and play.

 

Technology has changed the way tour players use the skills. And there are more tour caliber golfers competing. There is no going back. Re-tooling an industry to cap the smallest percentile of golfers is foolish. The game at the local level has not changed. Nobody is clambering for longer tee boxes and not a single course I play in the summer feels compelled to do so, nor have they.

 

Its not a requirement to be a fan of the pro tours to enjoy your golf.

 

My argument is that the skills are being reduced in the pro game and this is filtering down to the game at local level. Here are the stats for the pros from a small pro-am at my course last summer. Look at the course length and look at the scoring. Course is tight and requires control of ball position, shape and flight. The new generation do not have well-rounded games - they are one-dimensional bombers...even at local level.

[tannyhoban]

dont you see the flaw in the slaw there? your examples are two of the best living players on earth ( not counting jack etc) ....and yet you are finding flaw with the method?

 

 

 

edit---- no doubt i have an idea of how the best golf should be played... doesnt mean that because it isnt true anymore that its incorrect....just means that it has changed....in my opinion for the worse.

 

It hasn't changed. Nobody realized it before because shotlink didn't exist. They didn't add zone defense like in basketball. The way they play now has always been the best way. Just nobody realized it because we didn't have sophisticated enough tools to measure what the best players were actually doing. Faldo actually thought (and said) he was hitting the inside of the ball. Phil actually thought (and said) that he accelerates on every short game swing. Now we have trackman and shotlink and we know Faldo didn't and Phil doesn't.

 

Nothing has changed. We just have more information about what's actually going on. The veneer has been stripped, so to speak. Working the ball doesn't really matter. Putting skill matters very little and ball striking is king. That was golf in 1927 and its golf in 2017. Its just that today we have the technology to realize/prove it.

 

Its just like Synergy, the Shotlink of basketball. Synergy taught NBA teams that long two point jump shots and post ups are awful, and the only acceptable shots are layups, three pointers and free throws. Until now, teams built offenses around jump shots and the post. Now the Rockets will go entire games without taking a single one. Similarly, there has always been an optimal way to play competitive golf. Shotlink just didn't exist yet so we didn't know what it was.

 

There are a ton of NBA people who hate the "new NBA", just like there are a lot of people who hate this "version" of golf. And that's OK. But its not the equipment, its the *information*. Rolling back shotlink and trackman somehow would actually change things. Making pros use a R7 or whatever would change nothing. That is the point I'm trying to make. You are blaming the wrong bogeyman.

 

EDIT

I think your view is perfectly valid to dislike the modern PGA Tour. I just disagree that its the equipment. I think its the knowledge we've gained from shotlink and trackman about how golf is actually won. A lot of the mystery and mysticism of the "Golf in the Kingdom" side of the game is lost when you have an aimpoint chart and shotlink data from your previous 1,000 6 irons in this type of wind. I get it. I just don't think its the equipment.

 

SECOND EDIT

Very soon there will be no green reading at the professional level. Its very close right now. Your aimpoint chart literally shows you where to aim for every putt on the green. It doesn't tell you how hard to hit it, so there is still skill, but man if you've ever used one of those its like training wheels.

 

You've perfectly outlined the issue that a lot have with the modern way of doing it. Technology is reducing the level of skill required and as a result the game is becoming less satisfying to watch and play.

 

Technology has changed the way tour players use the skills. And there are more tour caliber golfers competing. There is no going back. Re-tooling an industry to cap the smallest percentile of golfers is foolish. The game at the local level has not changed. Nobody is clambering for longer tee boxes and not a single course I play in the summer feels compelled to do so, nor have they.

 

Its not a requirement to be a fan of the pro tours to enjoy your golf.

 

My argument is that the skills are being reduced in the pro game and this is filtering down to the game at local level. Here are the stats for the pros from a small pro-am at my course last summer. Look at the course length and look at the scoring. Course is tight and requires control of ball position, shape and flight. The new generation do not have well-rounded games - they are one-dimensional bombers...even at local level.

 

Truly funny. One example, a short course - very short. And you include pros. Not convincing. Start checking course records when you play and see how many were posted in the past decade.

[mahonie]

Funny how? That pros haven’t got the shots to play courses other than wide-open stadium courses? Hilarious

 

 

[Bye]

If they are truly better by going -25, how will we know? Is it better than Tiger in '97? Answer at best is it's apples to oranges. If my ball is straighter and Driver goes longer, if my putts role truer because of better tools (which they all do), am I really better? No.

 

Btw, the Stenson win was epic because of the dog fight with Phil, not because of conditions of play & as much I enjoyed Spieth's win, the greens were incredibly slow & receptive.. In both cases, the arena was not much a factor, which is a significant part of the game or at least should be. On of top of that those two events were not the best majors of their years. Not even close from a perspective of player against player and player against elements and course design.

 

If all that matters is the top190 going mano a mano, all's swell. Start talking about integrity, history and tradition, as is constantly done, there's something rotten in Denmark.

 

You seem to ignore courses have evolved and improved. Fairways are cut shorter and wider to encourage pro's to swing away on the tee, sand traps are always raked and the sand is perfect, greens are rolled and maintained in pristine conditions so they roll true. The tools have improved but so have the courses. Compare the course conditions today to those Ben Hogan played on, the entire game has evolved but you just want to focus on equipment.

 

So courses are better, greens are better (spike less golf is big here), balls are better, players have better tools of training (video, computers etc). yet they cannot shape the ball or do calculus on wind and terrain or face same risk/reward to same degree as players from Hogan to Norman had to. They need Duffer Tech to cope? Do not think so. Their excellence is being white washed with the "Tech". I fully believe if these guys had some form of roll back, you would not a see a lesser but see a better display of their talent. Not holding my breath on that though.

 

You guys are obsessed with "working the ball", but most top instructors will tell you working the ball is over rated. They will tell you it's better to learn to hit a stock shot fade or draw and stick with that shot. Even in Hogan's time he worked on hitting one shot and didn't focus on "working the ball".

 

It's fine having a stock shot and favouring one shape. It's taught like this to try to eliminate one side of the course more than anything else.

 

This is fine, until the wind really blows or your play a firm course where position is everything.

[pinestreetgolf]

My argument is that the skills are being reduced in the pro game and this is filtering down to the game at local level. Here are the stats for the pros from a small pro-am at my course last summer. Look at the course length and look at the scoring. Course is tight and requires control of ball position, shape and flight. The new generation do not have well-rounded games - they are one-dimensional bombers...even at local level.

 

"Changing to other skills that mahonie doesn't value as highly in his personal opinion" and "reduced" are not the same word.

 

We both agree that the tour requires a different skill set now than then. Only you say it requires "less".

 

And please stop posting one-time anecdotes and scorecards. Its impossible to discuss some semi-pro tournament that happened near you in a global context. You've done it twice now, once with a story of some D1 Nike guy you didn't name who might be a complete nutter and now with this. One-of tournaments or players can't be used to extrapolate trends of golf around the globe. Its just silly. For example, there is no weather on there whatsoever. I played in a tournament last summer with good players and shot what I consider to be my best round of the season at 76. It was the third best score that day in a field full of ex-SEC golfers.

 

It wasn't that everyone stinks now the round was just prior to a tropical storm, we shotgun started to make it in. I hit 3 wood into a 183 yard par 3 that was dead upwind, hit it solid and hard, and barely rolled onto the front of the green. So your chart doesn't mean too much given that there is no "conditions" or "pressure" cell.

[mahonie]

My argument is that the skills are being reduced in the pro game and this is filtering down to the game at local level. Here are the stats for the pros from a small pro-am at my course last summer. Look at the course length and look at the scoring. Course is tight and requires control of ball position, shape and flight. The new generation do not have well-rounded games - they are one-dimensional bombers...even at local level.

 

"Changing to other skills that mahonie doesn't value as highly in his personal opinion" and "reduced" are not the same word.

 

We both agree that the tour requires a different skill set now than then. Only you say it requires "less".

 

And please stop posting one-time anecdotes and scorecards. Its impossible to discuss some semi-pro tournament that happened near you in a global context. You've done it twice now, once with a story of some D1 Nike guy you didn't name who might be a complete nutter and now with this. One-of tournaments or players can't be used to extrapolate trends of golf around the globe.

 

It doesn’t matter to me that you don’t agree with real-life examples of where the game is going...it’s your loss. My scores on modern, long, stadium courses are five shots better per round than on old, short, traditional courses. It’s looks great on paper but I don’t get any sense of satisfaction out of it.

 

I truly feel sorry that you feel that speed, distance and making the game as easy as possible are the only things to enjoy in golf and the way forward. You enjoy your one-dimensional imitation of the game and I’ll enjoy my multi-faceted version and we’ll leave it at that...cheers.

[pinestreetgolf]

My argument is that the skills are being reduced in the pro game and this is filtering down to the game at local level. Here are the stats for the pros from a small pro-am at my course last summer. Look at the course length and look at the scoring. Course is tight and requires control of ball position, shape and flight. The new generation do not have well-rounded games - they are one-dimensional bombers...even at local level.

 

"Changing to other skills that mahonie doesn't value as highly in his personal opinion" and "reduced" are not the same word.

 

We both agree that the tour requires a different skill set now than then. Only you say it requires "less".

 

And please stop posting one-time anecdotes and scorecards. Its impossible to discuss some semi-pro tournament that happened near you in a global context. You've done it twice now, once with a story of some D1 Nike guy you didn't name who might be a complete nutter and now with this. One-of tournaments or players can't be used to extrapolate trends of golf around the globe.

 

It doesn’t matter to me that you don’t agree with real-life examples of where the game is going...it’s your loss. My scores on modern, long, stadium courses are five shots better per round than on old, short, traditional courses. It’s looks great on paper but I don’t get any sense of satisfaction out of it.

 

I truly feel sorry that you feel that speed, distance and making the game as easy as possible are the only things to enjoy in golf and the way forward. You enjoy your one-dimensional imitation of the game and I’ll enjoy my multi-faceted version and we’ll leave it at that...cheers.

 

Ah, the passive-aggressive "this is my last post, but rather than just not post I'll dramatically simplify the issue (you still haven't told anyone why its worse, just that you think its worse, over and over), take a personal potshot at the other guy and then say I won't post any more" post. A WRX classic. If you don't want to post any more, don't post. We don't need the last-shot-in-declaration-I-won't-post post.

 

Take care. I'll be off in other threads posting and listening trying to make the game as easy as possible for me. Which is what everyone else is doing except you, I guess.

[green.tea]

The ol’ my opinion is much more valid than your opinion because I said so argument from mahonie.