Rolling back the ball

[15th Club]

Why do anything at all if there are already limits in place? Why not just leave it alone?

 

Because the current testing limits are not a good enough practical limit. We want testing limits that scale the driving distances to a better fit for the existing courses.

 

So yes, there are "already limits in place." We'd simply lower the fail-point for testing. With the result that slightly new formulations of golf ball design and manufacture would be needed, to pass.

 

No big deal.

 

 

Even less of a big deal to leave it alone. Don't need to change courses. Don't need to change equipment. Might have to change record books, and that is the real issue most "rollbackers" have.

 

"Records" aren't an issue for me, and I have repeatedly said so here. What "records"? I have written several times in this thread that the only records that matter is who won. Far less so, an individual award like the Vardon Trophy. Maybe money-winnings.. All of which are entirely unrelated to a ball rollback.

 

So I don't know where you step off with an allegation about "the real issue most 'rollbackers' have..."

[Shilgy]

This argument will go on forever and ever. The same points are repeatedly being made by both sides. I think each side has valid points, but that doesn't make one more right than the other. I obviously don't want to see the ball rolled back. At the end of the day, I have a feeling that there are enough parties involved that feel the same way. So, I can rest assured that nothing will happen and I can continue to enjoy the game in its current state. For those that feel differently, I hope you can come to grips with golf in its current form.

 

You’d better be praying that DJ, Rahm or Koepka or, heaven forbid, Tiger doesn’t take Augusta apart in 3 weeks.

Well, at least now we know that if it's Rahm or Koepka it's only because of the easy equipment.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Why do anything at all if there are already limits in place? Why not just leave it alone?

 

Because the current testing limits are not a good enough practical limit. We want testing limits that scale the driving distances to a better fit for the existing courses.

 

So yes, there are "already limits in place." We'd simply lower the fail-point for testing. With the result that slightly new formulations of golf ball design and manufacture would be needed, to pass.

 

No big deal.

 

 

Even less of a big deal to leave it alone. Don't need to change courses. Don't need to change equipment. Might have to change record books, and that is the real issue most "rollbackers" have.

 

"Records" aren't an issue for me, and I have repeatedly said so here. What "records"? I have written several times in this thread that the only records that matter is who won. Far less so, an individual award like the Vardon Trophy. Maybe money-winnings.. All of which are entirely unrelated to a ball rollback.

 

So I don't know where you step off with an allegation about "the real issue most 'rollbackers' have..."

 

So, if you don't care about records, and you admit that players are simply stronger and faster now, there is no reason to change anything unless you just disapprove with the "way" modern players get the ball in the hole.

[15th Club]

...

...

...

 

But didn't you just spend a ton of time saying that you want to see four irons into greens? Hell, you even said that golf isn't just about hitting it the fewest amount of times.

 

 

 

No, I didn't. And now, I am done with you.

[Shilgy]

...

...

 

I have read all 35 pages, and commented on just about all of them. And I keep asking, why do these drastic things like changing the golf courses, or changing par? Why not just change the $3.50 golf balls?

 

Or answer the question why? How is it hurting you? Why not just stop progress with the ball where it is? I've asked you that probably five times and you have yet to produce one coherent, well thought out response.

 

We haven't stopped "progress" in all of the time that we have had static testing protocols. Technology isn't static. Technology keeps getting better. Players keep getting better. Better, that is, in relation to golf courses.

 

People keep saying, "leave it where it is." There is a ball regulation, just keep it where it is.

 

My problem is that it already went too far. But even if you don't accept my problem, the inarguable problem is that technology won't stay static; players won't stay static. A ball-testing protocol that doesn't change will result in a gradual creep upward in distance, after the massive jump upward in distance, from first metalwoods, and composite shafts, and then from urethane balls.

 

Why talk about "stop[ping] progress where it is? What made this point so magical? When you suggest "stopping progress" would you agree that something will need to be done, if there are more distance gains, in 2019, and 2020, and 2021?

 

That was the USGA's weak-sauce position with the R&A, in the 2002 Joint Statement. And then, "progress didn't stop."

perhaps the truth is finally out? The players are getting better and you don't like it? They do play a game with which you are not familiar and you just don't like it. Your ideal golf is a bunted driver for control and a 4 iron approach hit with a bit of a fade. That version of golf at the elite level went out with Paul Runyan. Snead did not play that way-not did Jack-or Arnie-or Weiskopf-or Norman-or Couples-or Tiger. Your ideal has not existed for eons.

 

Perhaps you should look into playing in the leagues that play hickory or 60's equipment. I know they exist. that way you could play the game you feel it was intended to be.

 

Even with a rollback the course you want would not be relevant as they are not big enough-please note this has nothing to do with the course or the ball- they are not big enough to host modern majors and the tents and fans and all that entails.

 

 

Don't do that. Don't tell me, or the other readers of this board, what I think. Don't mischaracterize me like that. And don't patronize me like that.

Well, you did just say a couple posts above that even though the players are bigger stronger and better that they should have to play the same game-same shots with the same clubs-I believe you called it quality of game- as did the players in the persimmon balata days.

[clevited]

I feel kind of bad, but I also admire you 15th, holding your ground firmly even though you have half a dozen or more people countering your viewpoint left and right. Just goes to show this is something meaningful to many people who love the game.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

...

...

...

 

But didn't you just spend a ton of time saying that you want to see four irons into greens? Hell, you even said that golf isn't just about hitting it the fewest amount of times.

 

 

 

No, I didn't. And now, I am done with you.

 

 

 

"But it isn't just about 'the one who completed the number of holes in the least number of shots.'"

[radiman]

I feel kind of bad, but I also admire you 15th, holding your ground firmly even though you have half a dozen or more people countering your viewpoint left and right. Just goes to show this is something meaningful to many people who love the game.

 

I will give him kudos for that for sure. Definitely has a strong viewpoint and is willing to defend it from an onslaught of people who feel differently.

[15th Club]

Ashley Schaefer, I saw what happened to the Jack Nicklaus thread. I am glad that I got out of it long before it turned personal and ugly, with you in the middle of that. I want nothing to do with anything like that.

 

I want to be done with you. Let it go.

 

Write whatever you want, about the demerits of a ball rollback. Leave me out of it.

[drn92]

...

...

 

I have read all 35 pages, and commented on just about all of them. And I keep asking, why do these drastic things like changing the golf courses, or changing par? Why not just change the $3.50 golf balls?

 

Or answer the question why? How is it hurting you? Why not just stop progress with the ball where it is? I've asked you that probably five times and you have yet to produce one coherent, well thought out response.

 

We haven't stopped "progress" in all of the time that we have had static testing protocols. Technology isn't static. Technology keeps getting better. Players keep getting better. Better, that is, in relation to golf courses.

 

People keep saying, "leave it where it is." There is a ball regulation, just keep it where it is.

 

My problem is that it already went too far. But even if you don't accept my problem, the inarguable problem is that technology won't stay static; players won't stay static. A ball-testing protocol that doesn't change will result in a gradual creep upward in distance, after the massive jump upward in distance, from first metalwoods, and composite shafts, and then from urethane balls.

 

Why talk about "stop[ping] progress where it is? What made this point so magical? When you suggest "stopping progress" would you agree that something will need to be done, if there are more distance gains, in 2019, and 2020, and 2021?

 

That was the USGA's weak-sauce position with the R&A, in the 2002 Joint Statement. And then, "progress didn't stop."

perhaps the truth is finally out? The players are getting better and you don't like it? They do play a game with which you are not familiar and you just don't like it. Your ideal golf is a bunted driver for control and a 4 iron approach hit with a bit of a fade. That version of golf at the elite level went out with Paul Runyan. Snead did not play that way-not did Jack-or Arnie-or Weiskopf-or Norman-or Couples-or Tiger. Your ideal has not existed for eons.

 

Perhaps you should look into playing in the leagues that play hickory or 60's equipment. I know they exist. that way you could play the game you feel it was intended to be.

 

Even with a rollback the course you want would not be relevant as they are not big enough-please note this has nothing to do with the course or the ball- they are not big enough to host modern majors and the tents and fans and all that entails.

 

 

Don't do that. Don't tell me, or the other readers of this board, what I think. Don't mischaracterize me like that. And don't patronize me like that.

 

That’s is funny. Based on what I’ve read in this thread you have been patronizing to others who do not share your view. We get it. You think the ball is the be all end all to the distance debate. The debate that involves the top 1% of the top 1% of golfers on the planet. There are 50 million golfers who do not need a ball roll back.

 

Golf has changed. The ball is only one piece of the equation.

 

drn92

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Ashley Schaefer, I saw what happened to the Jack Nicklaus thread. I am glad that I got out of it long before it turned personal and ugly, with you in the middle of that. I want nothing to do with anything like that.

 

I want to be done with you. Let it go.

 

Write whatever you want, about the demerits of a ball rollback. Leave me out of it.

 

Yeah, that was crazy that someone brought up that well-known, published quote from Nicklaus. We can agree to act like it never happened. I'm all good with that.

It would be nice to leave that out of this thread.

[DavePelz4]

2.2% since 2003.

 

With the advent of Trackman and training programs (weight training, overspeed training, etc.), that seems like a pretty small number.

 

Mrs. Pelz would be very happy with a 2.2% increase in length.

[AmazinBlue]

Would I be mistaken if I said that if you compiled all of the information brought to the table in this thread, that we have indeed concluded that a roll back would be terrible? I mean, the con's and possible con's that have been brought to light, pretty clearly out weigh the pro's of a change.

 

Pro's of change.

 

-Old courses more challenging, would be played in the preferred manor and could be played on tour again. True!

-Courses no longer need to get longer to appropriately challenge top professionals.

True!

 

 

Con's of change

 

-Bifurcation causes a rift between pro and ametuer.

Maybe. So let's not bifurcate.

 

-Handicap issues with bifurcation.

What issues? Not if players play from appropriate tees and Course Ratings and Slope adjust with changes in playability with legal equipment.

 

- Excluding any bifurcation, short players will get even shorter on tour and at our levels.

I'm not sure I even understand this.

 

-If spin is added, the game gets even more difficult for new players and current players.

 

I never proposed anything about "spin," and I don't recall anybody else making such a proposal. It's complete speculation on your part.

 

 

-Courses will likely need to change again due to the new ball (Shorter?Softer greens?Softer fairways?Shorter rough?).

 

No. Emphatically, no. The whole idea is to bring the cycle of course changes to an end.

 

 

-Players will still over power courses, even if nerfed a lot, therefore making the change not accomplish its goal.

 

Says who?

 

 

-Change is definitely NOT going to grow the game, it would if anything, hurt it. To what extent is unknown.

 

You don't know that. Your one honest point is saying it is "unknown." To me, it is "unknown" that there will be ANY downside. I don't see it; I don't expect it.

 

 

 

 

 

What rift between pros and amateurs? As far as I know the two sides don't speak and the only issue is that the USGA doesn't see that an amateur hitting ball 209 off the tee is ridiculous when the pros that get every piece of equipment spec'd, tuned and given to them and can hit balls and play for free whenever they want and the rest of us have to work for a living and PAY for all the balls and equipment we get. AND, our equipment may get measured on an LM and we can pick a shaft, we're still paying for that shaft. If you get an exotic shaft and do all the time on the LMs and get truly fit, you can easily spend $1,000 for one club. How many recreational players can afford that and still have money to play, not to mention the time?

 

Bifurcation wouldn't hurt the game. If the technology was designed for 105mph swing speeds and below instead of tour players, then more people would play. Hitting the ball shorter will drive more people from the game as it will lengthen the time on the course. Not arguing, just stating my opinion. I think the USGA and R&A are being arrogant about "protecting" the integrity of the game and losing site of what happens on the munis and regular courses that don't have rock-hard fairways running at 10-11 on the stimp.

[buckeyefl]

So hypothetically speaking, if a new swing technique is developed that enables players to hit the ball 20+ yards further what happens then?

 

Iron Bryon gains nothing because the equipment is regulated.

 

Oh easy. Roll back the ball by 20 yards. And good on anybody who came up with any technique that made the game more fun.

 

Why not? Again, the choice is; change the ball, or change the courses. (If you change nothing, the courses become beside the point. Just so much real estate. You could play in a park, or in a parking lot, if the course design didn't matter.)

 

To me the totally, laughably, easy choice is to change the ball.

 

No those are not the only choices. You can keep saying it until your thick-headed, argumentative self is blue in the face but it will never be true.

[buckeyefl]

Haven't read all 35 pages so apologies if this has been posted.

 

Why not change the par on holes? In the old days, the par 3's were up to 250, par 4's up to 470 (I think but could be wrong) and par 5's were over that. Make par 3's up to 325, par 4's up to 530 (as is done in some events) and start par 5's over that. We're accustomed to a course being a par 72 or 70, why not let the par drop to 68?

 

I have read all 35 pages, and commented on just about all of them. And I keep asking, why do these drastic things like changing the golf courses, or changing par? Why not just change the $3.50 golf balls?

 

The winner of the golf tournament is the one who completed the number of holes in the least number of shots. The measurement of their score to par has no bearing.

 

Right. Do I really have to state my agreement with that?

 

But it isn't just about "the one who completed the number of holes in the least number of shots." It's also about the quality of the shots played, and the overall play. In every tournament, there is a winner. Somebody shoots the lowest score, or wins a playoff, or wins the match play bracket. Somebody wins, whether the track is a muni, or whether it is an Open Championship at Muirfield. But the event at Muirfield, under major championship conditions, is a different sort of test, than shooting 58 at a U.S. Open qualifier at 6,600 yard Woodmont. Which has of course happened.

 

It's just a number. It's ten strokes less than 68. It's ten strokes more than 48, for that matter. They are all just numbers. But my point, as always, is the quality of the play.

 

No its really not.

[North Butte]

One option is leave the ball alone, leave the courses alone and let the players see how low they can go.

 

Nah, that’s just crazy talk!

[buckeyefl]

I feel kind of bad, but I also admire you 15th, holding your ground firmly even though you have half a dozen or more people countering your viewpoint left and right. Just goes to show this is something meaningful to many people who love the game.

 

Or love their interpretation of the game.

[bladehunter]

Totally off topic. (Sort of )

 

Just had long talk with a mentor of mine . Couple stories I can’t share details on . But a couple take aways. The usga and the pga of america are both in need of a cleanout. The good old boy network is alive and well in both. I’m goin to research this. But apparently they ( pga of America ) recently had a Brain fart and tried to get All master professionals to give up that title and re test for some new title that’s “ less intimidating “ and I’m guessing more Pc. Several master pros bucked it and threatened to sue. So it was scrapped. For now.

And the usga.

 

What was the reasoning for killing the Pub Links ? You have a 75 year old championship . Why on earth would you kill it ? I’m slowly changing camps on the ball. And always was against the groove rule. Mainly because it made a lot of good irons illegal.

 

There. Rant over.

[josh21120]

This!

[The Mad Bomber]

They've already essentially capped distance, so in theory, that precedent has been set. They have even acknowledged current ODS reflects tour launch conditions. The only failure is that ODS launch conditions may not have kept pace with tour launch conditions.

 

If and when they feel the need to update test conditions to reflect higher clubhead speeds (150mph anyone?) they will do so.

 

But the constraint will remain the same as when they last updated the test 15+ years ago. They will have to set the precise limits under the new test conditions so that balls currently deemed conforming do not fail the updated test. Because they will still not have the power to impose a retrograde obsolescence on balls they themselves deemed perfectly all right previously, not without risking a revolt.

 

Or perhaps they could sneak in a teensy, tiny rollback at that time. Make the new test limits equivalent to a couple percent less than the now-existing limits under the current test. And grandfather in the current balls. But that trick won't work for a 20% rollback.

 

Oh, come on. I could write that Rule toady, and email it to you by the close of business. Just write it like the groove rule. All equipment is deemed to be conforming as of the time it was built, And usable by recreational players for the next year, or two, or three. (What's your supply of golf balls? Right now, have you purchased the balls you'll use three years from now?) And as for elite-level play, a Condition of Competition goes into effect next year. You have to use balls manufactured to the new standard.

 

Let private clubs determine their own Conditions of Competition.

 

Done. Easy. Next question.

 

Your position is well documented on the issue, but here's my question to you 15th club. What happens when the PGA Tour stops caring about the hassle that the USGA becomes from time to time?

 

The Tour has traditionally been on the side of following the rules and keeping the peace. It has been documented that they are not rules makers and don't intend to be. But what happens when they say enough is enough? The PGA Tour Policy Board is under no obligation, legal or otherwise, to follow the rules that the USGA sets out. They vote on all the changes at a meeting. They voted on the groove rule, they voted on the anchoring ban and they'll vote on this, should a roll back come to fruition. So again, what happens if the PGA Tour decides not to adopt the roll back of the golf ball? The backbone of the Tour is comprised of independent contractors and one day, the attitude of keeping the peace may well go away when it doesn't suit them. So what will the USGA have accomplished then? They'll have a shorter ball for the chap that only hits it 209 and a Tour player that still carries it 340. They'll have the one professional Major that they run back in their control, and that's it. I'm not saying this is necessarily the hill they're going to die on, but it could be.

 

I'm not saying that it's going to happen. But it may - the PGA Tour has openly stated that they don't see a problem with the data. And then all of a sudden the USGA has done nothing but punish the everyday golfer that couldn't break 90 if you gave him hot drivers and balls with radar. What I'm getting at is that the USGA is not protecting the integrity of the game for the masses when it's focusing it's resources on .00001% of the golfers who play on a tour that they don't actually have control over. That's where I've always been confused. Why is the USGA sticking their collective noses into the business of an entity that they have no real right to intervene in. To further muddy the waters, The PGA Tour and The PGA of America both stated they were against the anchoring ban, but adopted it anyway, effectively reinforcing their completely unnecessary position of being followers of the rules, rather than the makers of them. My feeling is that eventually, the Tours use for the USGA will come to an abrupt end in the foreseeable future. Just an honest question for contemplation.

[gvogel]

Why do anything at all if there are already limits in place? Why not just leave it alone?

 

Because the current testing limits are not a good enough practical limit. We want testing limits that scale the driving distances to a better fit for the existing courses.

 

So yes, there are "already limits in place." We'd simply lower the fail-point for testing. With the result that slightly new formulations of golf ball design and manufacture would be needed, to pass.

 

No big deal.

 

 

Even less of a big deal to leave it alone. Don't need to change courses. Don't need to change equipment. Might have to change record books, and that is the real issue most "rollbackers" have.

 

"Records" aren't an issue for me, and I have repeatedly said so here. What "records"? I have written several times in this thread that the only records that matter is who won. Far less so, an individual award like the Vardon Trophy. Maybe money-winnings.. All of which are entirely unrelated to a ball rollback.

 

So I don't know where you step off with an allegation about "the real issue most 'rollbackers' have..."

 

So, if you don't care about records, and you admit that players are simply stronger and faster now, there is no reason to change anything unless you just disapprove with the "way" modern players get the ball in the hole.

 

so, I agree that modern players are stronger and faster. Fantastic. I just want the equipment rolled back so that their stronger and faster game fits the older golf courses. What's wrong with that?

 

What's wrong with asking the best players in the game to play a 480 yard par 4 with a drive, and a 4-iron? Maybe that means that the shorter distance tour players have to play that same hole with a drive and a 5-wood?

 

What is wrong with testing these players with more difficult shots? They are the best players on the planet. Make the game more difficult from tee to green and you can make the game a bit easier on the putting surfaces.

[clevited]

Would I be mistaken if I said that if you compiled all of the information brought to the table in this thread, that we have indeed concluded that a roll back would be terrible? I mean, the con's and possible con's that have been brought to light, pretty clearly out weigh the pro's of a change.

 

Pro's of change.

 

-Old courses more challenging, would be played in the preferred manor and could be played on tour again. True!

-Courses no longer need to get longer to appropriately challenge top professionals.

True!

 

 

Con's of change

 

-Bifurcation causes a rift between pro and ametuer.

Maybe. So let's not bifurcate.

 

-Handicap issues with bifurcation.

What issues? Not if players play from appropriate tees and Course Ratings and Slope adjust with changes in playability with legal equipment.

 

- Excluding any bifurcation, short players will get even shorter on tour and at our levels.

I'm not sure I even understand this.

 

-If spin is added, the game gets even more difficult for new players and current players.

 

I never proposed anything about "spin," and I don't recall anybody else making such a proposal. It's complete speculation on your part.

 

 

-Courses will likely need to change again due to the new ball (Shorter?Softer greens?Softer fairways?Shorter rough?).

 

No. Emphatically, no. The whole idea is to bring the cycle of course changes to an end.

 

 

-Players will still over power courses, even if nerfed a lot, therefore making the change not accomplish its goal.

 

Says who?

 

 

-Change is definitely NOT going to grow the game, it would if anything, hurt it. To what extent is unknown.

 

You don't know that. Your one honest point is saying it is "unknown." To me, it is "unknown" that there will be ANY downside. I don't see it; I don't expect it.

 

 

 

 

 

What rift between pros and amateurs? As far as I know the two sides don't speak and the only issue is that the USGA doesn't see that an amateur hitting ball 209 off the tee is ridiculous when the pros that get every piece of equipment spec'd, tuned and given to them and can hit balls and play for free whenever they want and the rest of us have to work for a living and PAY for all the balls and equipment we get. AND, our equipment may get measured on an LM and we can pick a shaft, we're still paying for that shaft. If you get an exotic shaft and do all the time on the LMs and get truly fit, you can easily spend $1,000 for one club. How many recreational players can afford that and still have money to play, not to mention the time?

 

Bifurcation wouldn't hurt the game. If the technology was designed for 105mph swing speeds and below instead of tour players, then more people would play. Hitting the ball shorter will drive more people from the game as it will lengthen the time on the course. Not arguing, just stating my opinion. I think the USGA and R&A are being arrogant about "protecting" the integrity of the game and losing site of what happens on the munis and regular courses that don't have rock-hard fairways running at 10-11 on the stimp.

 

 

By rift I was referring to the fact that if bifurcate, the amateur handicap will no longer be comparable to the pro handicap unless you play the pro ball. Therefore it creates a rift between the two levels for aspiring amateurs. I don't want either bifurcate or a roll back at all. It is unnescessary as has been essentially proven time and time again in this thread.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

What is wrong with testing these players with more difficult shots? They are the best players on the planet. Make the game more difficult from tee to green and you can make the game a bit easier on the putting surfaces.

 

There is nothing wrong with asking them to play a 480 yard par 4 with a drive and a 4-iron. There is also nothing wrong with them playing the same hole by hitting driver 9-iron. Finally, I don't see nothing wrong . . . with a little bump-n-run.

 

EDIT: I messed up your quote somehow. Apologies.

[clevited]

 

so, I agree that modern players are stronger and faster. Fantastic. I just want the equipment rolled back so that their stronger and faster game fits the older golf courses. What's wrong with that?

 

What's wrong with asking the best players in the game to play a 480 yard par 4 with a drive, and a 4-iron? Maybe that means that the shorter distance tour players have to play that same hole with a drive and a 5-wood?

 

What is wrong with testing these players with more difficult shots? They are the best players on the planet. Make the game more difficult from tee to green and you can make the game a bit easier on the putting surfaces.

 

Read some entries earlier in this thread, or what I summarize here.

 

If the ball is rolled back (depending on how), there will still be plenty of players bombing and gouging still. It won't stop it. You would have to limit the ball such that the fastest swing speed players can't get it out past 300 or whatever number is deemed necessary. 135-140 mph swing speed with control is possible by several pro's I am sure. They will hit that nerf ball harder than they currently can on most holes on most courses (there isn't usually much room or benefit to carrying 360 on most courses), negate the nerf ball's reason for existing and proceed to hit a wedge into the green. They will be able to "unhitch the plow" with a nerf ball and not be penalized. They will become the new golf gods, and then we will have this stupid arguement all over again.

 

Right now, courses are self limiting. How many times on tour can a player that has that kind of club speed really uncork it? There are a handful of holes no doubt but they absolutely cannot do that on every par 4 which many on here act like is happening.

[tnord]

https://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2018/3/7/state-of-the-game-75-the-ball-debate?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[klebs01]

Would you pro-rollback folks be satisfied if they simply changed the USGA test distance to 292, undoing the 7% increase in tour distance from prior to the prov1 launch?

[clevited]

https://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2018/3/7/state-of-the-game-75-the-ball-debate?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

I don't know if I speak for more than myself but could you summarize what is in the audio. I have a strong dislike for that guy and I really don't want to sit and listen through it all when I can read a summary in a couple seconds.

[radiman]

https://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2018/3/7/state-of-the-game-75-the-ball-debate?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

I don't know if I speak for more than myself but could you summarize what is in the audio. I have a strong dislike for that guy and I really don't want to sit and listen through it all when I can read a summary in a couple seconds.

 

+1

[tnord]

no, i will not give you the cliffs notes only to be told i'm an idiot and trying to ruin golf.

 

take the time to educate yourself. read up on the issue. listen to people who have dealt with the issue and form your own opinion. i'm not telling you what to believe, but at least make the effort.

[North Butte]

“Educate yourself” meaning “listen to people I agree with”.