Americans Love Golf, BB is Dying

Off Topic
21

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
Man, I can’t stand when people even jokingly refer to playing a round of gold as getting ‘exercise’ -lol. My buddy Steve and I started playing ‘meathead golf’ a few summers ago. Basically we both suck horribly, but who doesn’t love wacking the hell out of a golf ball? So our man goal is to just distract ourselves so we stay outdoors and get a tan. We do usually get the nasty looks from the ‘usual’ type of golfers… us walking around with our shirts off, and laughing hysterically when we make an especially bad shot, getting into gold club swinging fights, throwing each others’ ball into the woods. Sadly, we’re not the young guys you would expect this sort of asinine behavior from… Guess us bodybuilders are going the way of the dinosaur though…

S
[/quote]

haha… That’s great.

I was a caddy all of last summer and it was fucking horrible. Fuck those snooty, cheap, senile, vile bastards.

22

Golfers can has sexz?

23

[quote]stringer wrote:
tribunaldude wrote:
And pray tell, whats stopping the other golfers from doing the same if they feel it would make a significant difference? Its not illegal, easily performed and doesn’t cost an arm and a leg for someone already on the pro circuit.

stringer wrote:
MarvelGirl wrote:
How does seeing better enable him to hit the ball better?

In the past, my eyesight was over corrected with contacts, I didn’t become some sort of super woman. I don’t really see how it’s such a benefit.

it would massively improve putting ability among many other things.

why would he have had his vision improved BEYOND 20/20 except for it to have an advantage to his game? do you think at that level something as vital as improved eyesight wouldnt make a difference? of course it would. many other top golfers, eg vijay singh HAVE had this operation as well.

my point is why is this allowed when it is so obviously performance enhancing?
[/quote]

As per Google search;
The Snellen fractions, 20/20, 20/30, etc., are measures of sharpness of sight. They relate to the ability to identify small letters with high contrast at a specified distance. They give no information about seeing larger objects and objects with poor contrast (such as steps and curbs); it also does not inform us as to whether or not meaning is obtained from visual input, how much effort is needed to see clearly or singly, and whether or not vision is less efficient when using both eyes as opposed to each eye individually.

In short, visual acuity measures only the smallest detail we can see; it does not represent the quality of vision in general.

So, having better than 20/20 means nothing when it comes to reading greens for putting…unless perhaps you are trying to count blades of grass at a specified distance.

24

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Golfers can has sexz?[/quote]

…and cheezeburgars?

25

So you want to add the stipulation that pro-golfers be tested for 20/20 and vision BEYOND this limit be disqualified if it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that said candidate underwent surgical correction, or rather improvement?

My point is that such a dictat would be rational if:

  1. surgical ‘overcorrection’ posed any (medically proven/speculated and accepted as severe) health concerns.
  2. surgical ‘overcorrection’ was generally considered as “beyond” the financial means of the average golfer on the pro-circuit.

Your argument is not entirely without merit, mind you. Lets say Woods went to planet Venus and got operated upon to set up multiple compound eyes (like the common housefly) to improve his game (or a BBer injected himself with reptilian DNA to boost recovery), assuming that were a viable option for him at some point of time - where do we draw the line? if it were viable for everyone keen on competing or being considered to compete in the pro-circuit, why be concerned? If it will change the playing field then consider monitoring/prohibiting the practice.

I say that the two cases I listed above would serve as handy guidelines to use as a basis for monitoring/prohibiting the procedure of surgical ‘overcorrection’ as leading to a decidedly ‘unfair’ advantage. Again, there might be athletes from Guatemala who cannot afford the training equipment to come up in the ranks and at what point do these guys cry foul over the ‘unfair’ advantage the american, fijian and continental players have…

Anyway…the powers that be have decided its NOT an unfair advantage so the line has been drawn.

[quote]stringer wrote:
tribunaldude wrote:
And pray tell, whats stopping the other golfers from doing the same if they feel it would make a significant difference? Its not illegal, easily performed and doesn’t cost an arm and a leg for someone already on the pro circuit.

stringer wrote:
MarvelGirl wrote:
How does seeing better enable him to hit the ball better?

In the past, my eyesight was over corrected with contacts, I didn’t become some sort of super woman. I don’t really see how it’s such a benefit.

it would massively improve putting ability among many other things.

why would he have had his vision improved BEYOND 20/20 except for it to have an advantage to his game? do you think at that level something as vital as improved eyesight wouldnt make a difference? of course it would. many other top golfers, eg vijay singh HAVE had this operation as well.

my point is why is this allowed when it is so obviously performance enhancing?
[/quote]

26

[quote]giterdone wrote:
stringer wrote:
tribunaldude wrote:
And pray tell, whats stopping the other golfers from doing the same if they feel it would make a significant difference? Its not illegal, easily performed and doesn’t cost an arm and a leg for someone already on the pro circuit.

stringer wrote:
MarvelGirl wrote:
How does seeing better enable him to hit the ball better?

In the past, my eyesight was over corrected with contacts, I didn’t become some sort of super woman. I don’t really see how it’s such a benefit.

it would massively improve putting ability among many other things.

why would he have had his vision improved BEYOND 20/20 except for it to have an advantage to his game? do you think at that level something as vital as improved eyesight wouldnt make a difference? of course it would. many other top golfers, eg vijay singh HAVE had this operation as well.

my point is why is this allowed when it is so obviously performance enhancing?

As per Google search;
The Snellen fractions, 20/20, 20/30, etc., are measures of sharpness of sight. They relate to the ability to identify small letters with high contrast at a specified distance. They give no information about seeing larger objects and objects with poor contrast (such as steps and curbs); it also does not inform us as to whether or not meaning is obtained from visual input, how much effort is needed to see clearly or singly, and whether or not vision is less efficient when using both eyes as opposed to each eye individually.

In short, visual acuity measures only the smallest detail we can see; it does not represent the quality of vision in general.

So, having better than 20/20 means nothing when it comes to reading greens for putting…unless perhaps you are trying to count blades of grass at a specified distance.
[/quote]

http://www.abledata.com/abledata_docs/Distance_Perception.htm

27

[quote]Mr Body Massage wrote:
“why I don’t want to drive 405”[/quote]

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA…love this, exactly what crossed my mind when I opened this thread.

28

[quote]tribunaldude wrote:
So you want to add the stipulation that pro-golfers be tested for 20/20 and vision BEYOND this limit be disqualified if it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that said candidate underwent surgical correction, or rather improvement?

My point is that such a dictat would be rational if:

  1. surgical ‘overcorrection’ posed any (medically proven/speculated and accepted as severe) health concerns.
  2. surgical ‘overcorrection’ was generally considered as “beyond” the financial means of the average golfer on the pro-circuit.

Your argument is not entirely without merit, mind you. Lets say Woods went to planet Venus and got operated upon to set up multiple compound eyes (like the common housefly) to improve his game (or a BBer injected himself with reptilian DNA to boost recovery), assuming that were a viable option for him at some point of time - where do we draw the line? if it were viable for everyone keen on competing or being considered to compete in the pro-circuit, why be concerned? If it will change the playing field then consider monitoring/prohibiting the practice.

I say that the two cases I listed above would serve as handy guidelines to use as a basis for monitoring/prohibiting the procedure of surgical ‘overcorrection’ as leading to a decidedly ‘unfair’ advantage. Again, there might be athletes from Guatemala who cannot afford the training equipment to come up in the ranks and at what point do these guys cry foul over the ‘unfair’ advantage the american, fijian and continental players have…

Anyway…the powers that be have decided its NOT an unfair advantage so the line has been drawn.

[/quote]

Since he had the procedure on Oct. 1, 1999, Tiger says everything–especially the hole and the ball–looks bigger.

29

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
I don’t know about golf, but golf CARTS are the most awesome thing ever, especially when you’re wasted.[/quote]

x2

The Golf Cart is pretty much the only vehicle where its socially acceptable to drive it completely drunk.

30

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
Man, I can’t stand when people even jokingly refer to playing a round of gold as getting ‘exercise’ -lol. My buddy Steve and I started playing ‘meathead golf’ a few summers ago. Basically we both suck horribly, but who doesn’t love wacking the hell out of a golf ball? So our man goal is to just distract ourselves so we stay outdoors and get a tan. We do usually get the nasty looks from the ‘usual’ type of golfers… us walking around with our shirts off, and laughing hysterically when we make an especially bad shot, getting into gold club swinging fights, throwing each others’ ball into the woods. Sadly, we’re not the young guys you would expect this sort of asinine behavior from… Guess us bodybuilders are going the way of the dinosaur though…

S
[/quote]

You forgot golf cart chicken, sand trap jumping, seat checking (this is where you catch your buddy lounging a little too much in the passenger seat and you cut the wheel as hard as possible and mash the brake, sending him tumbling out, usually onto the cart path), bag checking (untying the other guys’ bags when they’re teeing off so when they pull out or go up a hill their bags fall off the cart), and tee checking (where you knock your buddy’s ball off the tee after he puts it in the ground, then stomp on the tee to bury it in the ground).

These are the things that make golfing fun. Well, that and lots of beer.

31

I take it he forced his wife to undergo the same ‘overcorrection’ then?

I know I would…

[quote]stringer wrote:
Since he had the procedure on Oct. 1, 1999, Tiger says everything–especially the hole and the ball–looks bigger .
[/quote]