Will Tiger Need His Driver at the British Open?

Will Tiger Need His Driver at the British Open? -
umhula77 Reputation:98 Level:Superstar Since:Jan 8, 2008
	May 6, 2008 6:49 pm Score: 94
	oneiron- As a side bar, if you feel obliged to "clip and paste" some of my earlier comments, it would be a good idea to use them in the context they were written. I used the part of your quote significant to my post. I've read many of your posts and "propensity to over-work.."overwrought over-written post", still stands. I wasn't talking about any single one of your posts, I was addressing them all. By contrast, I try not to "over-reach" the significance of such details; for example, this thread on the topic of "Average Driving Distance". This thread is, "Will Tiger Need His Driver at the British Open". I would say you have definitely "over-reached" and over-stated. Listen, the world is full of baboons in the peanut gallery who sit on the sidelines making snide remarks about what others think. They themselves offer little. If you were referring to me, I answered the question without having to go into a long, "overwrought over-written post", to placate my own ego. As for you, well sorry to disappoint you. I had a great childhood thank you. I have a great family and tons of friends. Played sports all through high-school and college, and went on to a great career. I have a beautiful house in sunny SoCal, and step out of my patio and play golf every evening. You must have missed it the first time, I could care less. What you have done (or say you have done) has no bearing on these posts. My judgements are completely void of anything outside of how you express yourself over these threads. "I have a life. I have better things to do, than to spend all of my free time researching, just to take a pot-shot at someone." Hmmm? That wasn’t a potshot? Take your own advice, again, "it would be a good idea to use them in the context they were written." The obvious point is, I won't waste an hour of my time to take a shot at someone or their overblown sense of self-worth. It can be done in a much more efficient manner. Tell you what, I will look forward to some of your posts and tell you what I think of your writing style. Can you try to keep it under 2000 words. Your "propensity to over-work" a post gets boring to us baboons. here is an explanation of a "construct validity" – a construct validity refers to the degree to which inferences can legitimately be made from the operationalizations in a study to the theoretical constructs on which those operationalizations were based. Like external validity, construct validity is related to generalizing. http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/constval.php "Construct validity refers to the degree to which inferences can legitimately be made from the operationalizations in your study to the theoretical constructs on which those operationalizations were based. Like external validity, construct validity is related to generalizing." The above quote you copied directly from the url I have posted. Another example of how you try to impress by passing off thoughts as your own. It is very easy to plagarize someone else's work. Talk about a baboon...
	See replies · In Reply to... · Reply · Permalink

Will Tiger Need His Driver at the British Open? -
Mister 1 Iron Reputation:90 Level:All-Star Since:Jan 27, 2008
	May 7, 2008 12:14 am Score: 86
	to: umhula77 Hey there girl, snap out of it! You are using in an overwrought and over written manner my expression, "overwrought over-written post". In fact, by my count you have used it many more times than I ever have. Having a bad day or just suffering through a bout of writer’s block? And yes, this thread is indeed titled "Will Tiger Need His Driver at the British Open?" In fact, my original post simply asked "JustMyTwoCents" why he thought, ". . . most other golfers will have to use the driver", at the British Open? No biggie. It gravitated to the subject of "Average Driving Distance", but I didn’t take it there, your pal Baby Gerber did. If you have an issue with that, take it up with him. And, whatever it was that possessed you to gush forth the following compliment to Baby Gerber, I could not care less: "Nicely done BG. I have never given much thought to the golf stats we are discussing here, for the simple reasons you so elegantly described." Elegantly? Hey you red-lipstick baboon, the correct phraseology is "eloquently". Elegant is what a smiling Baby Gerber looks like in spiked platform heels bent over while you do him with your pink glitter strap-on. The image of the two of you locked in an afterglow repose is just too hilarious for words. But I digress. Just because I trashed his post, don’t feel so embarrassed; his post is only an anchor around your neck if you make it one. Now close your eyes you little monkey, later this evening I might respond to Cher’s latest post. Try not to get your bloomers in a bunch. Okay? Luv ‘ya!
	See replies · In Reply to... · Reply · Permalink

Will Tiger Need His Driver at the British Open? -
umhula77 Reputation:98 Level:Superstar Since:Jan 8, 2008
	May 7, 2008 1:36 am Score: 91
	oneiron - Elegantly? Hey you red-lipstick baboon, the correct phraseology is "eloquently". No. "Elegantly described" in writing, is quite proper. "Eloquently spoken", is used to describe an oration. Are you reduced to attempting to correct semantics? You couldn't find another article to plagerize? I see you failed to address that scenario. As far as your homoeroticism, that seems to be much more conducive to your lifestyle, SoCal, land of fruits and nuts. I'm sure you gorge with delight in both. For the rest of your spew, cry and hammer away all you want and try to deflect your embarrassment, your plagarism is flagrant. You can't wish that away or hope it just fades. Your credibility has been reduced to zero. Anything you write now has to be regarded as lies and deceit, and if true, plagarized. I'm sure all of your "friends" are impressed by your "intelligence". I wish some of them were here on these lines to see what a fool you are, caught cheating by a baboon, oh, I'm sorry, "red-lipstick baboon". But I digress. Just because I trashed his post, don’t feel so embarrassed; his post is only an anchor around your neck if you make it oneSeems to me the only ship sinking here is yours. That of an unoriginal, boring, plagarist. Did I miss any facts?
	See replies · In Reply to... · Reply · Permalink

Will Tiger Need His Driver at the British Open? -
Mister 1 Iron Reputation:90 Level:All-Star Since:Jan 27, 2008
	May 7, 2008 9:20 am Score: 87
	Cher, (you write): "A 10% difference in the ball amounts to about 3 yards from the biggest to the shortest hitters on average. Perhaps there were a smaller amount of long hitters with complete games back in the 70's and 80's so that shorties could compete. The scoring average is all they need to be concerned about...not driver length. Do we need to appologize to Mrs. Corey Pavin for only being able to hit the ball 250 yards off the tee?" You mean Cory Pavin, the 1995 U.S. Open winner? I guess you missed that year’s Open at Shinnecock Hills when he beat long hitting Greg Norman down the stretch. Too bad, Corey’s second shot on the last hole was spectacular and will always be remembered as a historic U.S. Open moment. And Shinnecock Hills in 1995? Too bad you missed it. Shinnecock that year was one of the toughest U.S. Open venues ever. Nah, your apologies are not needed. Corey Pavin won 15 times over his career so he doesn’t need your sympathy. Adam Scott? Charles Howell III? Stewart Cink? They’ll never win 15 times that’s for sure . . . better save you sympathy and apologies for them. Anyway, let me get this straight, you believe the longer hitters average around 300 yards and the shorter hitters around 270, therefore a 10% reduction in ball flight will only reduce the margin of difference by a negligible 3 yards? Wow, you don’t really think it’s all that simple do you? No on second thought, that third sentence above confirms it. You DO think it’s all that simple. Good grief! First off, I think in your last post you now tacitly agree there is indeed a disparity in the distribution of Major winners since Year 2000. Whereas, in the 1980’s and 1990’s, major winners came from across the spectrum of players regardless of their driving prowess, in the last 33 majors that is not nearly the case. I state if ball flight is harnessed by 10%, competition will deepen simply because players in the lower Quartiles (not presently competitive), will once again add to the number of bona fide contenders. Okay, consider this: During the period from 1984 to 1995, the average driving distance on tour went from 259.5 to 263.4. That’s a mere 3.9 yard change. During the period from 1995 to 2007, the time during which the current ball came into being, the average driving distance went from 263.4 yards to 282.8. That’s a 19.4 yard increase. Your notion is this 19.4 yard increase in distance was uniform across the field and everyone benefitted from the advancement of ball technology. That’s certainly the popular thought but you would be wrong. Let me show you. Beginning at 2007 and working back to 1996, here are three player’s average driving distance figures. Fred Funk: 272, 273, 270, 272, 274, 273, 272, 267, 270, 267, 260, 262. Corey Pavin: 265, 266, 259, 268, 269, 258, 253, 251, 253, 249, 251, 248. Brad Faxon: 270, 270, 275, 274, 277, 270, 275, 264, 266, 263, 260, 257. Here are three other players for the same period: Phil Mickelson: 298, 301, 300, 295, 306, 289, 294, 289, 286, 283, 284, 280. Fred Couples: 302, 296, 295, 293, 289, 288, 285, 283, 289, 284, 286, 276. Kenny Perry: 300, 293, 305, 296, 295, 286, 292, 283, 280, 277, 272, 270. If you average each year’s figures for both groups and then compare those averages, you’ll see the margin between the two groups increased by more than 50%. In plain speak the benefit of advance ball technology was not uniform across the field. Don’t trust me? Here are the numbers beginning with 2007 and ending in 1996: The difference in aver