Is a Two Piece Ball a Step Back?

[munichop]

I found the titleist trufeel to have a fair amount of spin on mid and short irons but less on longer irons and hybrids. I am currently playing the hammer control and it spins enough for me. I found the soft fly, duo, supersoft (earlier versions) to be less skinny.

[Tanner25]

I'm all for a good two piece. But, did we skip over the 3 piece surlyn category? E12? Cut Matte 3 piece, Volvik vivid. I have enjoyed the SuperHot in matte. How do these compare?

[lenman73]

Out of what I have now, I have to go with the new top flite hammer control. For 15 balls for 15 bucks, I think it's a gem. More testing might change my mind, but right now, I am a big fan of the ball.

 

Now to The Pearl's last post and point. For a lot if not most people, I would agree 100%. For myself almost 100%. Deals can definitely be found on tour balls no doubt. I do play a tour ball the majority of the time. Like I mentioned in one of the threads, the prov1x is my favorite. But it tends to be a little firmer than the non tour balls I use. Truth be told, if I know the course I'm gonna play will allow a non tour ball, then that is selected out of my pain level. Having 2 surgeries on my right hand and wrist, one reconstructive, I am literally just thankful I can still play golf. Midway through a bowling league, I had to switch to bowling left handed. I will never be able to right handed again. Sad part is, three and a half years in, I am a better bowler now. Go figure. But at times, a softer ball just isn't as jarring on a mishit. Still hurts when I thin one, but it didnt rattle my soul as much. But like I said, I can get away with it at some courses I play. Now tomorrow where we are going, it will be urethane all day.

[ZacR88]

I play off a 6 Handicap now and play Wilson Duo Soft balls. Is a Pro V or the like going to really drop my scores? No. I also played the same Wilson ball for the last 4 rounds before loosing it. So I could easily justify the cost...

[Tanner25]

Agreed, I have chronic tendonitis and appreciate a softer two piece ball.

[munichop]

As some of you know I went on an extensive quest to find the gamer soft replacement with both 2 and 3 piece balls. I auditioned 16 different models and now will alternate between the trufeel, hammer control and new gamer. The e12 soft is nice but has no noticeable advantage for me and costs much more.

[Tanner25]

It's odd with DSG's new lineup, they never replaced the gamersoft. We must be in a small minority for liking the ball. Maybe, there's still hope.

[arbeck]

Will it lower your scores, probably. Most research says that the better performing balls do lower scores (mainly because the ball behaves in a more consistent fashion). The kicker is that the better you are, the less the ball will improve your scores. This seems a little counter intuitive, but does make sense. First, if your scores are already low, it's hard to lower them much further. Second, the more consistent you are, the less the small inconsistency in the ball will matter.

Now the question on whether that improvement is worth it to you, or you can even see it. If the ball improves your score by a .25 shots a round, you'd have to be playing a lot of rounds and keeping detailed stats to even notice it.

[gregen9]

Enjoyed the read through of this topic guys! It's a subject I've looked into in an effort to help my own game. Want to challenge a widespread myth. The golf ball neither "slides" nor "rolls" up the face of a club. It isn't on that face long enough to do any such thing (high speed photography shows this). The angle of the face (effective loft) and the angle of swing path along with ball material, compression etc. combine to produce spin.
My own opinion is that cost is the ONLY reason to be hitting ionomer (surlyn is a Dupont trademark) covered golf balls. So if you lose balls regularly or just don't want to spend money by all means hit surlyn. I have hit some good scores with surlyn (I just play them NOT to check), but around the greens or close in this is often not a realistic strategy. Kirkland balls are the deal here but not everyone is a Costco member. Does anyone know of any other inexpensive urathane balls? I don't. I have gone to 'remanufactured' balls online and am happy with the results (after looking at the process of what 'remanufactured' means).
I remain skeptical of all those claiming to be playing their best golf with surlyn- but I will often play surlyn in our Northwest winters where we are basically playing off of mud for about half the year. Everything sticks then!
 

[The Pearl]

A value urethane ball that gets overlooked is the MG Tour.  Always $19.99/dozen.

 

 

[bluedot]

1 hour ago, gregen9 said:

Enjoyed the read through of this topic guys! It's a subject I've looked into in an effort to help my own game. Want to challenge a widespread myth. The golf ball neither "slides" nor "rolls" up the face of a club. It isn't on that face long enough to do any such thing (high speed photography shows this). The angle of the face (effective loft) and the angle of swing path along with ball material, compression etc. combine to produce spin.
My own opinion is that cost is the ONLY reason to be hitting ionomer (surlyn is a Dupont trademark) covered golf balls. So if you lose balls regularly or just don't want to spend money by all means hit surlyn. I have hit some good scores with surlyn (I just play them NOT to check), but around the greens or close in this is often not a realistic strategy. Kirkland balls are the deal here but not everyone is a Costco member. Does anyone know of any other inexpensive urathane balls? I don't. I have gone to 'remanufactured' balls online and am happy with the results (after looking at the process of what 'remanufactured' means).
I remain skeptical of all those claiming to be playing their best golf with surlyn- but I will often play surlyn in our Northwest winters where we are basically playing off of mud for about half the year. Everything sticks then!
 

 

I have used the terminology "sliding up the face" because Dean Snell uses that to explain the difference between surlyn two piece balls and multi layer urethane balls, and IMO Dean Snell knows as much about golf ball construction as anybody, living or dead.  In the link below, go around 8:30 in and listen to him explain the difference between the GetSum and the MTB.  I understand what you are saying about the face angle/swing path/ball material/ball compression combining to produce spin, and I'd add grooves to that, but either the ball is on the club face long enough for that stuff to work and produce spin, or it isn't.  It may just be convenient language by Dean Snell and others; I have no problem with that.

 

Most importantly, though, we agree on the only reason to play surlyn balls, which is cost.  Literally, there is NO performance advantage to surlyn, especially now that urethane covers are so durable.  In the old days, surlyn went farther, but those days are gone.  And the answer to your question about inexpensive urethane golf balls, fwiw, brings you back to Dean Snell, who is making multi-layer urethane golf balls that perform on a level comparable to ANY premium Tour ball, and better than most.  And you can get MTB's and MTB-X's for under $30/doz if you buy in bulk.  There are others, of course, but none better than Snell.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPsW482jvOM

 

[NativeTxn]

1 hour ago, gregen9 said:

Enjoyed the read through of this topic guys! It's a subject I've looked into in an effort to help my own game. Want to challenge a widespread myth. The golf ball neither "slides" nor "rolls" up the face of a club. It isn't on that face long enough to do any such thing (high speed photography shows this). The angle of the face (effective loft) and the angle of swing path along with ball material, compression etc. combine to produce spin.
My own opinion is that cost is the ONLY reason to be hitting ionomer (surlyn is a Dupont trademark) covered golf balls. So if you lose balls regularly or just don't want to spend money by all means hit surlyn. I have hit some good scores with surlyn (I just play them NOT to check), but around the greens or close in this is often not a realistic strategy. Kirkland balls are the deal here but not everyone is a Costco member. Does anyone know of any other inexpensive urathane balls? I don't. I have gone to 'remanufactured' balls online and am happy with the results (after looking at the process of what 'remanufactured' means).
I remain skeptical of all those claiming to be playing their best golf with surlyn- but I will often play surlyn in our Northwest winters where we are basically playing off of mud for about half the year. Everything sticks then!
 

When Srixon is doing their BOGO a few times a year you can get the Z Star and the Z Star XV for $20/dozen, and the Q Star Tour for even less than that - all of which have urethane covers.

 

I know those are technically more expensive than Kirkland, but I’d personally go with the Z Stars for about 7-8 more per dozen than the Kirklands.

[HyzerFlipDG]

FYI: you don't have to be a Costco member to get the kirkland balls. You can order them on the Costco site and they will ship them to you. 

[rwbloom93]

Nobody but the OP can say if a 2-Pce is a step back from the multilayer urethane. Since many reasons have been given already for why it's a step back, I'll list a few reasons why it could be a neutral step or maybe a step forward, all things considered.

 

1. Does the OP,  on average, leave putts and chips short. If yes, a 2pce ball may improve scoring because  they are a little more livelier off the face than urethane balls.

2. What is the most common result of the OP approach shots? Mostly hit the green but short or long? or miss short? miss long? miss with draw Left? miss with block right? Fat? Thin?  If you only hit a few greens per nine and you mostly come up short, a 2 pce ball may help improve your game.  If you hit the green but it rolls out then a 2 pce will obviously hurt.  For all the other scenario's a 2pce is probably the better option anyway.

3. What is the most common result of the OP drive? Unless the OP can shot shape off the tee a 2 pce ball is not inferior here.

 

I honestly believe there is no reason for the average weekend golfer to ever play a urethane ball.  I understand the Titleist study says the opposite (and maybe that's true) but I'm skeptical....Anecdotally, I think players struggle to keep the ball in play, struggle with approach shots (and quality strikes), struggle with hitting pure chip shots and struggle with green speed (judging distance). If my theory is right the urethane ball is a waste and the 2 pce may be a better option.

 

Note: I have no rebuttal to the argument a urethane ball will fly more consistently for the average golfer but not sure that helps much if it's a consistent miss-fire already.

 

OP, don't you think $15/dozen is pretty eff'ing cheap already?

 

Regards   

   

 

 

 

 

[North Butte]

Leaving putts short has nothing to do with the material of the cover (or with the material of the putter insert for that matter). They are because you either don't hit it hard enough or you miss the sweet spot.

[8602081]

I use ProV1/TP5, because it responds better with short irons.  I don't think putting and driving makes much difference..  

 

 

 

[iNeedMoreGolf]

in my opinion... unless your a tour pro... it really shouldnt matter that hard. Granted there is a perfect fit ball for everyone... but i think the differences are somewhat small. I think most important is matching what you need for your game.. if its distance buy a distance ball.. if its spin by a spin ball... both 2pc and more have both category... ive played 2 pc and over 2pc.. they have both worked very well for me... maybe a touch toward the 2pc being better for me..id love a 10pc nuggets and ball though.

[gregen9]

10 hours ago, NativeTxn said:

When Srixon is doing their BOGO a few times a year you can get the Z Star and the Z Star XV for $20/dozen, and the Q Star Tour for even less than that - all of which have urethane covers.

10 hours ago, bluedot said:

 

I have used the terminology "sliding up the face" because Dean Snell uses that to explain the difference between surlyn two piece balls and multi layer urethane balls, and IMO Dean Snell knows as much about golf ball construction as anybody, living or dead.  In the link below, go around 8:30 in and listen to him explain the difference between the GetSum and the MTB.  I understand what you are saying about the face angle/swing path/ball material/ball compression combining to produce spin, and I'd add grooves to that, but either the ball is on the club face long enough for that stuff to work and produce spin, or it isn't.  It may just be convenient language by Dean Snell and others; I have no problem with that.

 

Most importantly, though, we agree on the only reason to play surlyn balls, which is cost.  Literally, there is NO performance advantage to surlyn, especially now that urethane covers are so durable.  In the old days, surlyn went farther, but those days are gone.  And the answer to your question about inexpensive urethane golf balls, fwiw, brings you back to Dean Snell, who is making multi-layer urethane golf balls that perform on a level comparable to ANY premium Tour ball, and better than most.  And you can get MTB's and MTB-X's for under $30/doz if you buy in bulk.  There are others, of course, but none better than Snell.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPsW482jvOM

Still trying to figure out formats here so bear with me. It's Bluedot's reply I'm addressing here. Yeah, I don't think the 'sliding'/'rolling' issue is a big deal. Let's say it's a useful metaphor. My information comes from Ralph Maltby in his video explaining the characteristics of wedges. Snell is a genius, I agree. But he is also selling golf balls. Maltby is not.
I think we are in agreement about the primary issue.
To the others who defend 2 and 3 piece surlyn golf balls and want reasons to like them: I think the fact that you like them is sufficient. As I noted earlier, and hadn't heard from anyone else: playing conditions might make the differences between surlyn  and urathane balls a moot point.

 

[Titleist_PT23]

9 hours ago, rwbloom93 said:

I honestly believe there is no reason for the average weekend golfer to ever play a urethane ball.  I understand the Titleist study says the opposite (and maybe that's true) but I'm skeptical....Anecdotally, I think players struggle to keep the ball in play, struggle with approach shots (and quality strikes), struggle with hitting pure chip shots and struggle with green speed (judging distance). If my theory is right the urethane ball is a waste and the 2 pce may be a better option.

 

Note: I have no rebuttal to the argument a urethane ball will fly more consistently for the average golfer but not sure that helps much if it's a consistent miss-fire already.

The best reason is because they want to.  Or to absolutely play their best / have the most options available.

 

Personally, I don't think it makes much difference for me.  Maybe a shot per round but that's the upper bound.  The point is that for weekend golfers, many could play with 7 clubs and scores wouldn't change.  Same reason someone that plays 52-56-60 could be given a 54-58 (or vice versa).  If you cannot make consistent contact, then the equipment doesn't matter much (pulling 7-iron or 8-iron doesn't matter much when you hit it thin/fat or off the toe).  Similarly, there is a performance difference on a 50-yard pitch with a urethane vs. surlyn ball.  But when you carry it 20 feet to far, you are not getting up and down very often if if it was a great ProV1 that checked up immediately.  

 

At my level (7-8 index), I miss more than 1/2 my shots on the course.  By miss I mean that the contact isn't perfect, ball flight isn't want I had played for, distance or direction are off with otherwise OK characteristics.  Every now and then there is a round where the urethane's characteristics allowed me to get up and down 4 times in the round and because of it my score was materially better.  But that happens once or twice a season.  Usually, the four times that I'm in jail by the green I'm making 4 bogeys whether I had a ProV or a range ball.

 

I contend that if you hit less than 9 greens and get up and down less than half the time, you don't have consistent control over the ball (or close to these figures.  Some low single digit guys probably do have control, but my main point is the people that hit 2-6 greens and get up and down 20%-33% of the time don't).  You have control on the shots that work out well but it's as much random probability distribution luck as anything.  The issue arises because people attribute the shots that work out to their tour like short-game skills that were only possible due to equipment choices, and ignore all of the shots that look like those of a weekend golfer (bad breaks, I screwed up, etc).  They claim the second bucket won't happen again other than it continues to repeat itself more often than not.

 

Just look at the statements but "Titleist or Dean Snell, the guys selling me a product, told me it's better so it must be true!"  People believe whatever they want to believe.  There are many that slam surlyn balls for their lack of spin on full iron shots.  But then they claim the Costco balls spin too much.  Seems like they just want to play a ProV1, which is entirely fine.  But what they want to believe has already been determined in their head.

[North Butte]

I played just fine with the 3pc K-Sig when I tried it even though its excess spin can be a problem if it's windy or for players who create a lot of clubhead speed and spin. That's a minor disadvantage it has over almost any other urethane ball but emphasis on "minor". Not a serious problem for most people.

 

Surlyn balls bounce over greens every single round. They simply don't work as well as urethane balls in the important matter of stopping iron shots reasonably quickly on firm greens. If you generate a lot of spin with your swing or you play on squishy soft greens that's not as big a deal but there's still no advantage to Surlyn. 

 

There's nothing inconsistent about saying that all urethane balls are preferable to all non-urethane ball and at the same time say that one has preferences for or against particular urethane ball models. 

 

The only thing in my head is the experience of trying about 20-25 different models of non-urethane golf balls over the past 20 years and finding that not a single one of them suits my basic requirements for a golf ball. And I've tried about that same number of different urethane balls and every single one of them worked better than any of the non-urethane ones.

 

So if you want to save money, buy cheap urethane balls. Or if for some reason you truly want the ball to release and roll forward a long way on approach shots and around the green, take your pick from the non-urethane balls.

[Flyers99]

I am going through this now. For me, I am going non-urethane. For me as a 9 HC they work better. I cannot tell you how many times I chip with urethane and it will check up one hole and not the next. User error probably but it is what it is. With the Surlyn I get similar roll every time so my green  play is better. As for approaches, yes they run out a little more. But not like 30 feet. For me the difference may be 10-15 feet. So unless I hit the back of the green I am still on. Last week shot  my best round of the year in our 9 hole league with a Maxfli Softfli a 37.  I dint agree with the notion everyone should play urethane. I play with <5 HC who don’t and can stop a Surlyn ball on a dime. Don’t know how they do it but they can. 

[North Butte]

I play with a guy who used the Titleist Velocity for years and it stopped pretty well for him. I know how he does it, he hits the ball literally twice as high as I do and hits his irons about three clubs longer than I do. With enough clubhead speed, spin and elevation even a low-spin ball will stop.

 

The past few months he discovered the KIRKLAND SIgnature 3pc ball at Costco and switched to it because it was cheaper than the Titleist. I would think for him it would spin too much but then again I'd have thought the Velocity would not spin enough. He likes them both equally well. There are certainly some players whose game seems pretty immune to even major differences in the type of golf ball they use. This guy's game is basically to swing hard, hit the ball high and reasonably straight and keep things really basic around the greens (i.e. no "low spinners" or flighting the ball). That type of game kind of takes high spin/low spin out of the equation. I'd play that way if I had the physical ability to do it! 

[Tanner25]

Was having problems with chipping and thought by hitting a urethane ball, it would force me to strike it better and land it more towards the hole. For every cool checking shot, there was an equal amount of ones that ended up short. I believe as everyone always says, pick and ball and stick with it. I choose 2 piece for it's lower cost and I like the variety of softer feel options. ie: Soft Feel, Burner Soft. 

[Titleist_PT23]

2 hours ago, Flyers99 said:

I am going through this now. For me, I am going non-urethane. For me as a 9 HC they work better. I cannot tell you how many times I chip with urethane and it will check up one hole and not the next. User error probably but it is what it is. With the Surlyn I get similar roll every time so my green  play is better. As for approaches, yes they run out a little more. But not like 30 feet. For me the difference may be 10-15 feet. So unless I hit the back of the green I am still on. Last week shot  my best round of the year in our 9 hole league with a Maxfli Softfli a 37.  I dint agree with the notion everyone should play urethane. I play with <5 HC who don’t and can stop a Surlyn ball on a dime. Don’t know how they do it but they can. 

This is what people don't understand.  I'll give an analogy.  A Blueprint 6 iron is a better club for me trying to hit a draw to a back left pin on a sliver of green tucked over a bunker.  Every once in a while I can pull it off and it's easier to do with this club than a G series iron.  But playing a basic straight shot into the middle of the green from the fairway or tee box on a par 3 is my best option for success, and this is the shot I face most often.  The G series limits what I can do but on average it is better for me.  Why?  I'm not skilled enough to control the extra spin (and sidespin) that the Blueprint puts on the ball.

 

I would also concur that the difference in rollout is on the order of 10-15 feet, sometimes less.  Although green condition is a big factor here.  But even on firm greens, the difference between many surly balls and tour balls is 500-1000 rpms on full iron shots.  I.e. the difference in one club or so.  I'm still waiting for people to tell me that their 8-iron shots stops next to the hole but their 7 iron shots runs out 30+ feet (all else equal).  In my view, it just doesn't happen and there are other factors at play when they say one was over the green and one was next to the hole (strike, green condition, wind, etc).

[Titleist_PT23]

2 hours ago, North Butte said:

I played just fine with the 3pc K-Sig when I tried it even though its excess spin can be a problem if it's windy or for players who create a lot of clubhead speed and spin. That's a minor disadvantage it has over almost any other urethane ball but emphasis on "minor". Not a serious problem for most people.

 

Surlyn balls bounce over greens every single round. They simply don't work as well as urethane balls in the important matter of stopping iron shots reasonably quickly on firm greens. If you generate a lot of spin with your swing or you play on squishy soft greens that's not as big a deal but there's still no advantage to Surlyn. 

 

There's nothing inconsistent about saying that all urethane balls are preferable to all non-urethane ball and at the same time say that one has preferences for or against particular urethane ball models. 

 

The only thing in my head is the experience of trying about 20-25 different models of non-urethane golf balls over the past 20 years and finding that not a single one of them suits my basic requirements for a golf ball. And I've tried about that same number of different urethane balls and every single one of them worked better than any of the non-urethane ones.

 

So if you want to save money, buy cheap urethane balls. Or if for some reason you truly want the ball to release and roll forward a long way on approach shots and around the green, take your pick from the non-urethane balls.

What I'm saying is for you the AVX spins too little.  The K3 spins too much.  Tiger wants a ball that spins as much as possible, as he can always take spin off.  Other players want a ball that spins less (knowing in some short game cases this is a limiting factor).  For some reason its OK to believe a less spin is better if it's still a urethane but if less spin is coming from a surlyn that can't be right.

[Titleist_PT23]

2 hours ago, North Butte said:

I would think for him it would spin too much but then again I'd have thought the Velocity would not spin enough. 

This is the key.  Thought knew but didn't really know...

[Titleist_PT23]

@North Butte I apologize for my last post.  We've obviously debated this a lot so hope you can take the comment as somewhat of a joke.

 

In all seriousness, if it is difficult for you to hold greens with lower spinning balls due to lower shot height, decent angle, why wouldn't the maximum spin of the K3 help?  This is part of what I don't understand and I find it extremely odd that the ProV1x is somehow the magically happy medium (between AVX and K3) other than the qualitative factors of "just like it more," "played it tons, know what it does," "have confidence," etc (all of which are fine).

 

I don't hit the ball excessively high or extremely far, and I do play in part of the world where the greens are usually receptive (other than ~2 months of the year when there is less rain and professional tournaments are held at the course) even if they are fairly quick.  But even on baked out bermuda I still don't see the DIFFERENCE between well struck iron shots with a urethane or a surlyn.  Same conditions and similar strike (as best I can judge) the DIFFERENCE is 10-15 feet (could be 0 and 15 feet rollout or 30 and 45 feet rollout but not 0 and 45 feet).

[North Butte]

Well, the Pro V1x (or Pro V1 or Snell MTB or TP5X or Z-Star XV or any number of other balls) all basically hold the green on my iron shots as well as any ball can. Any more spin that that is more than I need to do the most important thing which is stop the darned ball on the green when I hit a cleanly-struck middle iron. 

 

The AVX or Chrome Soft are a little disappointing in that department so I don't use them because I have so many other options. But quibbling over those not spinning enough or the 3pc KIRKLAND spinning a little too much are just minor observations. I could play any of those and be fine.

 

Non-urethane balls aren't even close to acceptable in terms of stopping power on middle irons. None of 'em. None of the couple dozen I've tried anyway. 

 

You seem to think my observation that AVX is a little too low, KIRKLAND is a little too high and Pro V1x is just right someone invalidates my conclusion any non-urethane ball spins (on approach shots) much less than any of those. It's like me saying that an Accord is a little too big and a Honda Fit is too small while a Civic is just right. I could drive any of them but I'd never drive a 6,000lb SUV because it doesn't even come close to suiting my needs (for starters it wouldn't fit in my garage). 

[Titleist_PT23]

2 hours ago, North Butte said:

Well, the Pro V1x (or Pro V1 or Snell MTB or TP5X or Z-Star XV or any number of other balls) all basically hold the green on my iron shots as well as any ball can. Any more spin that that is more than I need to do the most important thing which is stop the darned ball on the green when I hit a cleanly-struck middle iron. 

 

The AVX or Chrome Soft are a little disappointing in that department so I don't use them because I have so many other options. But quibbling over those not spinning enough or the 3pc KIRKLAND spinning a little too much are just minor observations. I could play any of those and be fine.

 

Non-urethane balls aren't even close to acceptable in terms of stopping power on middle irons. None of 'em. None of the couple dozen I've tried anyway. 

 

You seem to think my observation that AVX is a little too low, KIRKLAND is a little too high and Pro V1x is just right someone invalidates my conclusion any non-urethane ball spins (on approach shots) much less than any of those. It's like me saying that an Accord is a little too big and a Honda Fit is too small while a Civic is just right. I could drive any of them but I'd never drive a 6,000lb SUV because it doesn't even come close to suiting my needs (for starters it wouldn't fit in my garage). 

Well, if your buddy can stop a Velocity maybe that's proof for you that not everyone needs a urethane ball to stop their shots from running over the back of the green.  But that doesn't stop the urethane snob comments (at least in the past) from coming (if you want to save money, see shots run out, etc).

 

I'd also suggest you go re-read all of your posts on the AVX and K3.  Many are a lot less diplomatic than what you describe here.  Again, it's clear you like your ProV1x and that's great.  I'm not disputing non-urethanes spin less.  The difference on well struck full iron shots is a lot less than you describe (data has been published on this too).

 

The ultimate point is that you want less spin from a ball than the K3.  Less spin is better or at least preferred.  There's no reason why less spin can't be better with a surlyn cover for someone else.  You don't seem to get this.

[North Butte]

Well I think I do get it. 

 

What I get is that you don't agree with many comments I've made on several different golf balls over a period of years. That's not a problem.

 

And if that's not "it" then I guess I don't get it. That's not a problem, either.

 

Cheers.