Bounce is Your Friend on Partial Wedge Shots and Engaging the Turf Prior to the Ball is a Good Thing When Hitting Them

[virtuoso]

2 hours ago, Gsea said:

lmao, lets see your resume. 

You don't have to be able to hit a ball great to understand what some people are capable of. Almost nobody that reads this forum is good enough to make those concepts effective on the course. He's a plus 4 which is better than anyone here and he's handing out high level info like everyone can perform at that level.

 

He needs to pull it back a little and maybe consult some of us veterans that have been here awhile.

[Righty to Lefty]

On 1/20/2024 at 5:24 PM, iacas said:

 

Who has said that? You sure do seem to love your straw men.

 

The fact is that you say a lot of stuff, and your pal says a lot of stuff, that's provably wrong. Factually incorrect. Demonstrably incorrect.

 

 

My understanding of math is not the issue.

 

Here's another issue: when you're not saying factually incorrect things, you're saying things like this: stuff that really has no merit, and/or doesn't make any sense. What are you actually saying here? You're just adding words, but not actually saying anything.

 

 

Once again: nobody's denied that. I've recorded videos pitching off hardpan with a wedge that has 22° of bounce. I've recorded videos where you can hit four or even five balls all on one swing by using the "glide" or bounce to glide the club along the ground.

 

 

You don't even know who or what you're arguing against.

 

Here's the thing, though: you can pitch five balls off of a forgiving mat with a gel insert. Good luck doing that — hitting a shot where you engage the TURF (not the tops of the grass) six inches behind the ball. That's really rare.

 

On a mat? Or carpet? Maybe. But… you're not anywhere close to even 3" behind the balls you're demonstrating, because there's not a bunch of soft padding beneath.

 

 

Again, you don't even know who or what you're arguing against. Again, I've hit flop shots off near hardpan with a wedge that has 22° of bounce. I've demonstrating hitting it off cart paths. But you're damn sure I'm hitting REALLy close to the ball, because the bounce on any wedge is not going to "slide" along the ground with cement/blacktop/concrete beneath. You're hitting as close to the ball — or slightly ball first — as you can.

 

And from 70 yards, or 90 yards, or 120 yards… you're not hitting even 1" behind the ball let alone 6. You're trying to hit ball first almost every time.

 

 

More nonsense.

You literally prove my point with that photo. I happen to set up precisely like that photo shows as that first golf ball is easily 6 inches behind the first one given the diameter of a golf ball is at least 1.68 inches.  I am literally setting up to the first ball with the ball furthest away being my actual ball that I intend to hit down my intended target line when hitting a flop shot, and then progressively less depending on how much bounce is exposed, my club gets closer to the ball. 

 

I am literally doing the exact same thing on the shot that I hit: 

 

 

The shot that you keep referring to that I hit in Abu Dhabi I barely had the face open and was trying to hit a flatter trajectory shot but I assure you that I engaged the turf behind the ball prior to hitting the ball as that was the reason why I had the shot recorded. That shot was hit with a 55 degree wedge which I hit 119 yards, yet the shot was only 55. When I grounded the club behind the ball before the shot that is where I struck the ground with the trailing edge but reminder the trailing edge on my wedges are almost 2 inches behind the leading edge.  This is also why it is mandatory to engage the turf prior to the ball to avoid skulling the shot with the bounce exposed.  

 

 

Oh and by the way my USGA legal "cheater" wedge has 35.5 degrees of bounce when fully open as the leading edge sits 1.25 inches off the ground and the trailing edge sits 1.75 inches behind the leading edge. So I wasn't too far off with my guess of 40 degrees of bounce.  It has 12 degrees of bounce with the shaft at 90 degrees.  

 

 

What is stunning to me is that you pump your chest up about hitting shots off of hardpan and tile floors and such, but you demonstrating that the bounce can be used off of those types of lies mean that it can/should be used off of any other type of lie and you further prove my point that bounce is your friend. Tight lies are simple to hit off of anyway because you can hit anywhere behind the ball and so long as your low point is in front of the ball the shot will come off just fine. 

 

Also by your rationale, since I am just a 5 handicap, and can't possibly know what I am talking about, then you and the rest of the elders are null and void when Vokey and Horschel stated that ams should no doubt be using the bounce and engaging the turf behind the ball right? So do we all have to shut up since people higher up the totem pole spoke on the subject? I am glad to demonstrate any shot that I speak of in person or on video and hope to finally meet up and play some golf with the people in these threads as @cav5 is the only person that I have met thus far.  My two cents R to L. 

 

 

[iacas]

33 minutes ago, Righty to Lefty said:

You literally prove my point with that photo.

 

Same tactics as usual… you don't read all of what is said to you. I have said several times that I also teach that shot. Nobody's said that you can't hit a short game shot by using the bounce or glide. Straw man.

 

33 minutes ago, Righty to Lefty said:

I happen to set up precisely like that photo shows as that first golf ball is easily 6 inches behind the first one given the diameter of a golf ball is at least 1.68 inches.

 

We don't strive to hit 6" behind a golf ball except when we're hitting four or five golf balls off a mat. A mat is not grass or turf.

 

33 minutes ago, Righty to Lefty said:

 

The shot that you keep referring to that I hit in Abu Dhabi I barely had the face open and was trying to hit a flatter trajectory shot but I assure you that I engaged the turf behind the ball prior to hitting the ball

 

Once again, you did not. It may have been your intent, but you did not.

 

 

33 minutes ago, Righty to Lefty said:

Oh and by the way my USGA legal "cheater" wedge has 35.5 degrees of bounce when fully open

 

Again, that's not how anyone measures bounce, and if it was per the picture posted earlier, the leading edge is above the equator of the ball:

 

 

Also, I'm not sure why that "c-word" is in quotes as if to imply that I said that. I have not. I searched the previous pages for the first five letters of that word and found nothing.

 

33 minutes ago, Righty to Lefty said:

It has 12 degrees of bounce with the shaft at 90 degrees.

 

Which, as has been pointed out several times by several people, is how you measure bounce. Your wedge has a ridiculously wide sole with 12° of bounce.

 

33 minutes ago, Righty to Lefty said:

What is stunning to me is that you pump your chest up about hitting shots off of hardpan and tile floors and such, but you demonstrating that the bounce can be used off of those types of lies mean that it can/should be used off of any other type of lie and you further prove my point that bounce is your friend.

 

This is one of the places where you go wrong. The two main issues I and others have had in this whole topic are:

• The Bounce Boys insistence that it be used EVERYWHERE for ALL shots, including 70 yards, 90 yards, even 120 yards.
• The Bounce Boys insistence that you "engage the turf" as far as six inches behind the ball.

There are a lot of other smaller points, and nearly countless things you two (the Bounce Boys) have gotten wrong. Your boy @cav5 didn't do you any favors… but I will say that you two were seemingly made for one another, as you employ the same tactics.

 

33 minutes ago, Righty to Lefty said:

Tight lies are simple to hit off of anyway because you can hit anywhere behind the ball and so long as your low point is in front of the ball the shot will come off just fine.

 

Good luck forcing the club to continue down toward that low point.

 

The flop shot I hit off hardpan? Guess what… it didn't "engage the turf before the ball." If it had, it would have bounced into the ball and it'd have been bladed. I had to hit it pretty much at the ball. The point of the video was to demonstrate that you can still hit a high soft shot with a wedge that has 22° of bounce off hardpan. That shot didn't engage turf with the bounce prior to impact. I timed it well, as I can do, and hit the ball and turf at the same time.

 

33 minutes ago, Righty to Lefty said:

Tight lies are simple to hit off of anyway because you can hit anywhere behind the ball and so long as your low point is in front of the ball the shot will come off just fine.

 

To be clear: no, you can't. The club is likely to bounce into the ball because you can't make the "low point in front of the ball" if you're hitting "anywhere behind the ball."

 

33 minutes ago, Righty to Lefty said:

I am glad to demonstrate any shot that I speak of in person or on video and hope to finally meet up and play some golf with the people in these threads as @cav5 is the only person that I have met thus far.  My two cents R to L. 

 

Your demonstrations don't mean much when you insist you "engaged the turf" behind the ball despite what we can all see.

 

Here's a full refund.

 

 

P.S. Stop replying to me, please. Stop quoting, everything. The both of you are not worthy opponents. You're intellectually dishonest, you don't read what's said (or at least reply to what's said…), and it's all just very scummy. I'm down for a good faith discussion on anything instructionally related. You two don't discuss in anything approaching good faith. You misrepresent, shift goalposts, ignore statements and posts, etc.

 

Edited January 24 by iacas

[dwboston]

57 minutes ago, iacas said:

This is one of the places where you go wrong. The two main issues I and others have had in this whole topic are:

• The Bounce Boys insistence that it be used EVERYWHERE for ALL shots, including 70 yards, 90 yards, even 120 yards

 

They're not debating this in good faith - it's a troll. 

 

This thread jogged my memory on the @MonteScheinblum Wedges video he did a few years ago.  He covers the technique and situations for using the bounce and how the setup and technique changes when you get beyond 50-60 yards, as you need to add speed, which introduces shaft lean and a relatively steeper approach into the ball.

 

The most charitable interpretation possible of the drivel that Bud Fox and his sock puppet have been spewing for these 70-120 wedge shots is something along the lines of the "Stricker" wedge technique that Monte described.  There is a slightly less than 90* wrist set at lead arm parallel, and a shallow approach into the ball, which produces a very high shot.  But that shot is absolutely contacting the ground in front of the ball, not several inches behind.  So I can only assume they're talking in circles to keep the thread going.  

[cav5]

6 hours ago, dwboston said:

 

They're not debating this in good faith - it's a troll. 

 

This thread jogged my memory on the @MonteScheinblum Wedges video he did a few years ago.  He covers the technique and situations for using the bounce and how the setup and technique changes when you get beyond 50-60 yards, as you need to add speed, which introduces shaft lean and a relatively steeper approach into the ball.

 

The most charitable interpretation possible of the drivel that Bud Fox and his sock puppet have been spewing for these 70-120 wedge shots is something along the lines of the "Stricker" wedge technique that Monte described.  There is a slightly less than 90* wrist set at lead arm parallel, and a shallow approach into the ball, which produces a very high shot.  But that shot is absolutely contacting the ground in front of the ball, not several inches behind.  So I can only assume they're talking in circles to keep the thread going.  

 

Not exactly. The "Stricker" swing presents itself as much simpler than it is. And I really mean no offense b/c at one point I though the same and similar to what @virtuoso said if you don't get the concepts I've crept in here you can not understand why.

Edited January 24 by cav5

[Hawkeye77]

12 hours ago, virtuoso said:

You don't have to be able to hit a ball great to understand what some people are capable of. Almost nobody that reads this forum is good enough to make those concepts effective on the course. He's a plus 4 which is better than anyone here and he's handing out high level info like everyone can perform at that level.

 

He needs to pull it back a little and maybe consult some of us veterans that have been here awhile.

Didn’t answer his question. 

[Hawkeye77]

This has gone beyond sideways.

 

The only remaining relevant question is when did these become fashionable male attire?

 

 

 

 

[virtuoso]

Just now, Hawkeye77 said:

Didn’t answer his question. 

I’m a single digit hdcp and have maintained it for over 10 years. I’ve been as low as a 3.7 and I’ve studied the swing meticulously, especially the methods of the greats. I’m not an “official” teacher but I’ve been a “swing consultant” on numerous golf forums and have helped untold numbers of hackers improve their understanding of the swing. I am more than qualified to be considered a guide and authority on this forum, and my counsel should be given high consideration in a complicated thread like this. Anything else you want to know?

[Hawkeye77]

10 minutes ago, virtuoso said:

I’m a single digit hdcp and have maintained it for over 10 years. I’ve been as low as a 3.7 and I’ve studied the swing meticulously, especially the methods of the greats. I’m not an “official” teacher but I’ve been a “swing consultant” on numerous golf forums and have helped untold numbers of hackers improve their understanding of the swing. I am more than qualified to be considered a guide and authority on this forum, and my counsel should be given high consideration in a complicated thread like this. Anything else you want to know?

I’m sure @Gsea will appreciate you’ve now answered his question and may or may not give you the high consideration you demand! 
 

 

[getitdaily]

27 minutes ago, cav5 said:

 

Not exactly. The "Stricker" swing presents itself as much simpler than it is. And I really mean no offense b/c at one point I though the same and similar to what @virtuoso said if you don't get the concepts I've crept in here you can not understand why.

So you went from a guy who couldn't get up and down from 2 feet to a supposed highly complicated mechanical guru of all things short game?

 

I've never seen anyone demonstrate anything close to your backwards club drop hand roll stuff that's supposedly some secret handshake society method of greatness. But now that you can fat dump every shot, you're some kind of savant? 

[virtuoso]

24 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

I’m sure @Gsea will appreciate you’ve now answered his question and may or may not give you the high consideration you demand! 
 

 

I honestly don’t understand the push back and sarcasm. I’m not a tour player but I’m good enough to execute at a pretty high level, and the actual important thing is my knowledge and expertise from many years of study.

 

But aside from that, there is a high level debate going on in this thread, and a misunderstanding of these concepts by the bogey golfers that read it will only make them worse. I’m trying to look out for them…..and I’m suddenly the villain?

Edited January 24 by virtuoso

[Hawkeye77]

1 minute ago, virtuoso said:

I honestly don’t understand the push back and sarcasm. I’m not a tour player but I’m good enough to execute at a pretty high level, and the actual important thing is my knowledge and expertise from many years of study.

 

But aside from that, there is a high level debate going on in this thread, and a misunderstanding of these concepts by the bogey golfers that read it will only make them worse. I’m trying to look out for them…..and I’m suddenly the villain?

Didn’t say anything of the kind.  
 

Not sure who the “bogey golfers” are that need to be saved or what that even really means, but golfers of all levels can sort this stuff out pretty well - this thread was off the rails long ago - and I think the “bogey golfers” left ages ago for stuff that makes sense vs. the merry go round.  

[cav5]

41 minutes ago, getitdaily said:

So you went from a guy who couldn't get up and down from 2 feet to a supposed highly complicated mechanical guru of all things short game?

 

I've never seen anyone demonstrate anything close to your backwards club drop hand roll stuff that's supposedly some secret handshake society method of greatness. But now that you can fat dump every shot, you're some kind of savant? 

Not at all, ask me 3 years ago if I could perform that GIF. Try it if its so hard! Not one person on this forum or elsewhere is going to look at it and say that dude doesn't get it or can't comprehend motion. It must pain you that it looks right because it is right.

[virtuoso]

26 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Didn’t say anything of the kind.  
 

Not sure who the “bogey golfers” are that need to be saved or what that even really means, but golfers of all levels can sort this stuff out pretty well - this thread was off the rails long ago - and I think the “bogey golfers” left ages ago for stuff that makes sense vs. the merry go round.  

Well, “saved” is a strong word but if you hear me out, we may actually agree more than you think. A debate like this should honestly be walled off to a different section of the forum. The idea of having the forum segmented and catered to different skill levels allows us to distribute the information in a way that is actually digestible and useful to each skill group. You could have a skill/knowledge score/status that is like your own pass card to the commensurate section level. This is a much better way to get people the help and info that is customized for their individual needs. Are we in agreement so far?

 

To add: It’s really interesting but I think your status (not the best word) should probably be more weighted toward knowledge than skill per se. A lot of people can hit the ball well but don’t understand how the swing works. Make sense to you?

Edited January 24 by virtuoso

[DShepley]

1 hour ago, getitdaily said:

So you went from a guy who couldn't get up and down from 2 feet to a supposed highly complicated mechanical guru of all things short game?

 

I've never seen anyone demonstrate anything close to your backwards club drop hand roll stuff that's supposedly some secret handshake society method of greatness. But now that you can fat dump every shot, you're some kind of savant? 

'Fat Dump'!......Totally adding that to the miss list!

[getitdaily]

18 hours ago, cav5 said:

Ok, then do that actual move and hit the ball. If you're implying that move is even a drill to improve the short game then do that move and hit the ball, in your living room. 

 

That move is so functionally improper that no one can hit the ball doing it. If that's supposed to be some sort of drill to change a pattern then, even then, it's so overdone that it's not functional. 

 

What you're doing here in no way helps someone hit behind the ball and pull off a standard chip.

[Gsea]

26 minutes ago, virtuoso said:

Well, “saved” is a strong word but if you hear me out, we may actually agree more than you think. A debate like this should honestly be walled off to a different section of the forum. The idea of having the forum segmented and catered to different skill levels allows us to distribute the information in a way that is actually digestible and useful to each skill group. You could have a skill/knowledge score/status that is like your own pass card to the commensurate section level. This is a much better way to get people the help and info that is customized for their individual needs. Are we in agreement so far?

 

To add: It’s really interesting but I think your status (not the best word) should probably be more weighted toward knowledge than skill per se. A lot of people can hit the ball well but don’t understand how the swing works. Make sense to you?

Sarcasm at its best

[Hawkeye77]

25 minutes ago, virtuoso said:

Well, “saved” is a strong word but if you hear me out, we may actually agree more than you think. A debate like this should honestly be walled off to a different section of the forum. The idea of having the forum segmented and catered to different skill levels allows us to distribute the information in a way that is actually digestible and useful to each skill group. You could have a skill/knowledge score/status that is like your own pass card to the commensurate section level. This is a much better way to get people the help and info that is customized for their individual needs. Are we in agreement so far?

 

To add: It’s really interesting but I think your status (not the best word) should probably be more weighted toward knowledge than skill per se. A lot of people can hit the ball well but don’t understand how the swing works. Make sense to you?

 

Any real "debate" left this thread a long time ago - just a couple protagonists getting their own entertainment value out of it, but . . . it's always a bit of a free for all when some chime in and you learn to sort it out.  I agree "status" isn't the best word but here is no way to section off skill levels or knowledge levels.  Even if there was a sub-forum for folks to go with real instructors or folks of some standard of knowledge, I don't see how any standard could be applied or measured or the site having any interest in whatever "background checks" and policing would go into it.

 

Good example of how this place works is there is a thread on the front page on using the bounce and someone starts another thread on using the bounce, lol, but if I really wanted to know and didn't want to search the exhaustive threads already existing on the topic, I sure wouldn't expect to get an answer to a real question out of this one at this point, so want to be fair. 

 

Having a few train wrecks up seems to focus some things and keep 95% of the other threads on task, IMO.  And often entertaining, if kept in perspective.

 

 

[virtuoso]

4 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

Any real "debate" left this thread a long time ago - just a couple protagonists getting their own entertainment value out of it, but . . . it's always a bit of a free for all when some chime in and you learn to sort it out.  I agree "status" isn't the best word but here is no way to section off skill levels or knowledge levels.  Even if there was a sub-forum for folks to go with real instructors or folks of some standard of knowledge, I don't see how any standard could be applied or measured or the site having any interest in whatever "background checks" and policing would go into it.

 

Good example of how this place works is there is a thread on the front page on using the bounce and someone starts another thread on using the bounce, lol, but if I really wanted to know and didn't want to search the exhaustive threads already existing on the topic, I sure wouldn't expect to get an answer to a real question out of this one at this point, so want to be fair. 

 

Having a few train wrecks up seems to focus some things and keep 95% of the other threads on task, IMO.  And often entertaining, if kept in perspective.

 

 

Ok, I think we are making progress. I don’t think extreme vetting or background checks are necessary but what about proof of usga hdcp index for skill level, and for knowledge level, there is an online quiz that you take when you register for an account. For members already registered, they can volunteer to take the quiz and get certified to a certain knowledge level, or they can be grandfathered in by a board made up of veteran members here. This seems like a good way to categorize forum members. Your thoughts?

 

I’d be interested in Gsea’s  thoughts as well now that he knows my background. 

[Shilgy]

1 hour ago, getitdaily said:

So you went from a guy who couldn't get up and down from 2 feet to a supposed highly complicated mechanical guru of all things short game?

 

I've never seen anyone demonstrate anything close to your backwards club drop hand roll stuff that's supposedly some secret handshake society method of greatness. But now that you can fat dump every shot, you're some kind of savant? 

Thinking we’re all missing the boat here……I bet he could reveal Hogan’s Secret.🤣

[Hawkeye77]

6 minutes ago, virtuoso said:

Ok, I think we are making progress. I don’t think extreme vetting or background checks are necessary but what about proof of usga hdcp index for skill level, and for knowledge level, there is an online quiz that you take when you register for an account. For members already registered, they can volunteer to take the quiz and get certified to a certain knowledge level, or they can be grandfathered in by a board made up of veteran members here. This seems like a good way to categorize forum members. Your thoughts?

 

I’d be interested in Gsea’s  thoughts as well now that he knows my background. 

I think that's likely to discourage membership and for a lot of reasons the site would never allow members to form some committee to decide who gets to post where or want to grade quizzes or seek USGA handicap verification.  Whatever the motive, and however well intentioned it comes off to me as unworkable and subject to being labelled a bit elitist.  Don't need any Bastille storming.

[swh0507]

1 hour ago, virtuoso said:

I honestly don’t understand the push back and sarcasm. I’m not a tour player but I’m good enough to execute at a pretty high level, and the actual important thing is my knowledge and expertise from many years of study.

 

But aside from that, there is a high level debate going on in this thread, and a misunderstanding of these concepts by the bogey golfers that read it will only make them worse. I’m trying to look out for them…..and I’m suddenly the villain?

This is not even a debate, this is a troll job. It especially isn't a high level anything. Just because someone is using big words, doesn't mean you should listen. Anyone who has gotten this far in the thread that is genuinely curious about short game technics, bounce etc. would find checking out the Mayo/Short Game Chef thread a much better use of their time. 

 

 

[getitdaily]

2 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Thinking we’re all missing the boat here……I bet he could reveal Hogan’s Secret.🤣

I have been back and forth, for a while, on whether cav5 is simply trolling or if he really believes he has the secret sauce to the short game by flipping the club on it's end to hit the ball...

[Hawkeye77]

1 minute ago, getitdaily said:

I have been back and forth, for a while, on whether cav5 is simply trolling or if he really believes he has the secret sauce to the short game by flipping the club on it's end to hit the ball...

He's got you right where he wants you! 😉

[getitdaily]

Just now, Hawkeye77 said:

He's got you right where he wants you! 😉

No, no he doesn't. 

 

I think it's a troll so I've made posts that make fun of him.

 

But he's also committed and justifying his nonsense by saying he's a +4. So I'm also nudging yhe boat iacas is on to safeguard folks who generally want to improve and may start trying this foolishness thinking it's legit and then they start shanking balls into people on the practice green.

 

I do think he has iacas where he wants him. But iacas can't walk away from a fight, so that's on him.

[virtuoso]

9 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

I think that's likely to discourage membership and for a lot of reasons the site would never allow members to form some committee to decide who gets to post where or want to grade quizzes or seek USGA handicap verification.  Whatever the motive, and however well intentioned it comes off to me as unworkable and subject to being labelled a bit elitist.  Don't need any Bastille storming.

Well, sadly, I’ve gotten a lot of push back from other forums when I’ve tried to implement this type of system. I’ve spent the last 5 years trying to help these people with my knowledge about educational systems, and I have the time to help here now that I’m retired, but people seem pretty ungrateful when the help is offered. But as one man without the “official” authority I can only do so much. But at least I think you understand I’m trying to do it for each person’s own good.

Edited January 24 by virtuoso

[dfeldss]

2 hours ago, virtuoso said:

I’m a single digit hdcp and have maintained it for over 10 years. I’ve been as low as a 3.7 and I’ve studied the swing meticulously, especially the methods of the greats. I’m not an “official” teacher but I’ve been a “swing consultant” on numerous golf forums and have helped untold numbers of hackers improve their understanding of the swing. I am more than qualified to be considered a guide and authority on this forum, and my counsel should be given high consideration in a complicated thread like this. Anything else you want to know?

 

Incredible. We are lucky to be in your presence. 

 

50 minutes ago, virtuoso said:

Well, sadly, I’ve gotten a lot of push back from other forums when I’ve tried to implement this type of system. I’ve spent the last 5 years trying to help these people with my knowledge about educational systems, and I have the time to help here now that I’m retired, but people seem pretty ungrateful when the help is offered. But as one man without the “official” authority I can only do so much. But at least I think you understand I’m trying to do it for each person’s own good.

 

Gee, I can't imagine why people may not be receptive to your "counsel" with that attitude. It's an open discussion forum my man. Notice how the respected contributors (bounce boys excluded) don't go around proclaiming their authority. They just share their ideas like everyone else

[virtuoso]

17 minutes ago, dfeldss said:

 

Incredible. We are lucky to be in your presence. 

 

 

Gee, I can't imagine why people may not be receptive to your "counsel" with that attitude. It's an open discussion forum my man. Notice how the respected contributors (bounce boys excluded) don't go around proclaiming their authority. They just share their ideas like everyone else

No, you misunderstand my point. I'm of course in favor of sharing the ideas, but if we had a system that matched who was sharing with who was being shared with, it would be much more efficient. Believe me, I have many years experience administrating educational systems, and you need to match the right students with the right teachers. I could very easily match those participants here, but it doesn't seem that people even appreciate the offer.

[iacas]

I am laughing my a** off right now. Kudos to a few of you who are in the know, more kudos to you who will figure it out eventually, and negative kudos to the Bounce Boys who haven’t and due to the way they discuss will never have a clue.

 

This post is presented without any sarcasm at all, which is just about the opposite of several other great posts above.

[jonsnow]

This thread in a nutshell: