Wizard's Blog

I have the same results with golf. I'm 21 years old and I haven't golfed since I was probably 17. I can never hit the ball square. I either top it, slice it, or on the occasion that I do hit it square, it turns out that I was aiming the wrong direction.



For this very reason, I never golf. My friends ask me to go with them all the time. I always have to decline, otherwise I would embarrass myself.

Glad to know I am not the only one - I know my problem (I always stand up when I swing the club) - I have rarely played since I was in my early 20's - only occasionally play a scramble format. Even then, my drives rarely crack 125 yds. Good thing they only need two of em. When people at work ask me why I don't play, my answer is simple - someone has to be here when the other 10 people go out golfing on a nice day. :)



-B

Thanks for the support, guys. If I had any sense I would turn down invitations to play too.

you have to see Charles Barkley try to play golf to feel better!





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s50K65PNeBU

I hope that "every game that involves a ball" doesn't include roulette.

Anyway, poor golf ability is pretty common. Most people play like Jack Nicholson.

Thanks, that video did make me feel better.

>> I'm lousy at every game that involves a ball.

Does that include roulette?





But seriously, I feel your pain.



The only golf I will play is if the course has windmills and loops. And I suck at that.

I've golfed since I was about 3 yrs old. Like a lot of things, golf is a game that is about 1000x easier for kids to pick up than adults. Most anyone that I know and have played with that are decent/good players started prior to age 15. Most players that pick up the game as adults are solidly on your side of the bell curve. My father has played the game constantly for 40+ years and he is worse now than ever. Like you, he'll only play with people he is very comfortable with, out of fear of embarrassing himself. On the flip side, when I played in junior golf events around the state, I'd see 8 yr olds that could shoot par.



As far as training devices there are literally thousands of them, but most of them are pretty worthless. Probably the closest thing to what you describe is the SuperSwing Trainer. What makes hitting a golf ball so difficult, is that that the swing must be on the proper plane throughout the swing. Most high handicappers swings are WAAAY off plane, thats why they spray the ball all over the place. Of course, none of this helps with the short-game, which is where most of the strokes add up.

I'd be glad to steal your clubs. Just bring them on the next coffee around May 2011. I swear I'll find a high bidder to give them a good home ;)

I am not an awful golfer, and my handicap is probably around 35. If you took lessons from a golf pro, you should be playing decently enough to not upset your partners. So I would just stop playing. You're not good at it. But you won't give up on it, will you?



Which actually surprises me. You know math, so you should know something about physics. Maybe your head is too much into the game. Try the driving range for awhile and get some practice. There's no one counting strokes, nobody behind you, nobody in front of you, no rough to hit out of. You just practice your swing there. Once you get to the point where you are hitting the ball consistently (either short and straight, or long and wild), you should try the course again. When you are at the range, try all of your clubs out. And, make sure that you work out a stroke that works for you, not the one that Tiger Woods uses, just one that will get you enough distance and enough consistency to work.



Good luck. You're not going to get any better if you play less than once a week, as your body doesn't remember what worked and what didn't.



I'll take you golfing next time we come to town. It'd be a great diversion from the casinos.

Last time I golfed I was happy I could finally get the ball through the windmill!

My handle, "niblick," probably accurately indicates that I am a golf nerd.



For the folks who speak of their games like you just did, I tell them this:



"If you look at the drawings done by the Golden Age Architects (guys prior to the Depression), you'll note that very few of them make reference to par. Why? Because for them, golf was about the journey--they felt par set a benchmark for failure."



These guys had it right.



Pro's who practice constantly screw up; so just go out and have fun and forget about how you play. Enjoy the company and the course and to Hell w/the score.



You'll be a lot happier for it.

I'm not a great golfer (I usually shoot 55-60 per 9 holes.) I used to be much worse, like the Wizard, even after taking lessons. One thing I eventually figured out on my own is that I wasn't warming up enough. Now I make sure to hit at least a small bucket of balls on the driving range prior to teeing off. It's helped a lot. I find that I have increased consistancy from it. I also tend to get more distance on my shots too.

Very nice. The University of Michigan has a similar program -- Camp Michigania, in northern Michigan. I went there for about 12 or 13 years, until we all got too old for it. Fortunately, my brother is graduating from there so we can utilize his "membership" in the future. I believe UC Berkeley has one, too, somewhere in the Sierra Nevada. I take it this center is open to everyone, not just UCSB alums?

Yes, I've heard of some other schools doing it too. I can't make any comparisons, but I think the concept is a great idea. While I am a UCSB alum, you don't have to be. However, if you are, it is a lot of fun to revisit the ol' campus and relive memories. I've been known to give a lot of unsolicited advice to the staff on classes and majors, most of who go to UCSB.

The 91 year-old Old Coot Mr. Rooney can't do too much wrong to get me mad at him, which I can pointedly say separates me from quite a few folk... he has rubbed more than a few people the wrong way and gotten himself yanked off the air at least once by offending some group.



Well, he's taken on Big Gambling this time and kicking them while they're down. I see no reason to applaud their having problems, particularly, so I don't much think he was on the money this time. And the Wizard makes plenty of other good points. So I'll just say I often like to hear and sort of go along with his curmudgeonly stuff and see what I can glean from it. I don't need to agree with him.

The argument about "producing" something is the one that gets me maddest. A similar argument is everyone complaining about how much money is spent on political campaigns. This person or that person spent "millions to get elected". Heck, I've even complained. But where does the money come from and where does it go? It usually personal wealth or donations from wealthy, well-connected businesses or individuals, who may expect something in return. True, that can be a negative if the pols are dishonest. But who benefits? How about all of the businesses that employ people based on political spending. Printing companies, web design companies, caterers, polling companies...these are usually middle class businesses that can use the help. And of course the big one: The broadcasting industry, of which I am still employed. Maybe you hate those political commercials, but they can often be the difference in generating enough revenue to keep extra people on staff to cover more local events and emergencies. The next time you hear about a Michael Bloomberg or Meg Whitman pumping tens of millions of dollars into your political campaign and you think that it's just a waste of money, consider the spending a huge injection into the local or regional economy by a multi-millionaire. It works better than taxes!

I partially share Mr. Rooney’s sentiments about producing physical products, but I think he expressed it poorly – mostly just a rant.



There are two important facts: First, actual creation of wealth almost always involves production of a physical product. And to create wealth, that production must result in a product that has more intrinsic value than the entire combination of resources that were consumed in the production activities. Furthermore, most activities that do not create wealth actually destroy wealth through their inefficiencies. Most of the service industries that dominate the U.S. economy do not create wealth; they just transfer wealth from one party to another. The exceptions to this are the services that enable or improve the efficiency of the manufacturing sector, such as communications and information services. To some extent, the insurance industry also contributes to creation of wealth by enabling the manufacturing sector to perform its services.



Second, the fact that an activity destroys wealth rather than creating it does not necessarily mean that it is a bad thing. Essentially all of our entertainment and recreation activities consume wealth without creating more. But in many cases we willingly give up that wealth because the “personal value” is more important to us than the actual wealth. Dining out at a restaurant, going to see a film, play, or ballet, or gambling in a casino does not only transfer wealth from one party to another but grinds away a little through inefficiency. But we do it anyway, often because we feel it improves our lives.



Two really bad situations from destroying rather than creating wealth come to mind: (1) individually squandering personal wealth, such as through compulsive gambling or frivolous consumption, and (2) having a national economy that is excessively based on services rather than production, so that wealth is gradually or rapidly eroded, perhaps through depletion of natural resources. These two represent ways to destroy an individual or a nation.



End of response rant.

Wiz -



You're just preaching to the choir here. You should immediately fomulate a response and sent it to CBS. Be sure to mention your credentials.



---



The producing a product thing? That ship has sailed.



It's been decades since this country (the world?) has shifted from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. Detroit produces a manufatured product. Las Vegas and CBS produce entertainment services.



And don't try to tell me that 60 Minutes is part of the news department. As a whole, CBS is entertainment. And certainly the Andy Rooney segment is meant to be entertaining. As are all those Andy Rooney books (of which I own four.)



So who's the evil boogey-man now?



Hmmm... Do those books fall into the product or entertainment side of this fence?

Quote: Andy Rooney

I mean who's best for this country - a machinist at an automobile plant in Detroit or a blackjack dealer in Las Vegas?

Quote: Andy Rooney

I've gambled half a dozen times in Las Vegas and even though I know how dumb it is. I think I can win. I've never won but that doesn't stop me from thinking "maybe next time."

Mr. Rooney is obviously resorting to old fashioned wants vs. needs view of economics. Although the perception of wants vs. needs is very prevalent, no serious economist uses those terms anymore.



How does the $30 billion a year gaming industry compare with the $40 billion a year soft drink industry? Colas have a higher physiological dependence than smoking and alcohol and is harder to give up.



Soft drinks account for one-quarter of all sugar consumed by Americans, and is having a significant effect on the health of America's children. Sugar supplies 99 percent of the 144 calories in a 12 ounce Coke. Forty percent of one to two year olds drink an average of 9 ounces of soft drinks per day.



Much of modern consumer culture is addictive behavior.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

The producing a product thing? That ship has sailed.

Rooney's comments sound like something I'd expect for his generation. Stuck in the past. Why they have the old fart on anymore is beyond me. I could go down to the local old folks home and listen to some guy tell WWII stories and get more out of it that Rooney offers. He used to be entertaining. The last decade or so he is just sad. CBS's charity case.

Doc, I agree with you completely about 'intrisic value'. The financial sector has grown to be the largest share of GDP in our history, but no one can really show that its growth has had a positive impact that actually creates wealth.

Mike, do you actually take Andy Rooney seriously? I don't really know alot of Americans who make life choices or decisions based on something the old fart says. He's editorializing, and frankly, I don't think he belongs at the end of 60 minutes except as a traditional footnote.



He has a point. Casinos make money from us. What I think he doesn't understand is the value of its entertainment. Frankly, if you go somewhere, pay money, and are not entertained, it's a waste of money, isn't it? You could substitute the word "Golf Course" or "Broadway Show" for that matter.



The problem with gambling is that for some people, gambling isn't entertainment, and it isn't a money making venture either... it's an addiction. What percentage of Vegas revenue comes from problem gamblers vs people who are simply making the choice to be entertained? A valid argument, but you should make the same argument with alcohol and tobacco as well. Marijuana smoking is illegal too but what percent of Americans partake in that activity?



I wouldn't have so much of a problem with Rooney's comments if the money wasn't being spent in America. Harrahs, the Sands, Boyd Gaming, Wynn, and MGM are American companies with multinational operations, employing Americans at their properties and their head offices. Like Broadway, movie theatres, and golf courses, the industry employs hundreds of thousands of Americans, and when the casino industry hurts, so does America.

Rooney was a reporter in EU in WWII, for crying out loud. He was a reporter before there was TV. Who cares what he says, my Grandma is 92 and we just nod and pat her hand when she talks. Rooney is 91, he stopped being relevent in the 80's and we forgot to notice.

So, should we expect Mr. Rooney to set his sites on the stock market next? Granted, any seasoned trader can navigate the various global exchanges, and a "newbie" can get lucky by investing his life savings on the next IBM, Apple, Yahoo!, etc. We all know, however, what happens to the 401(k)'s and IRA's of the vast majority of the uninformed masses who trade without proper insights, professional and unbiased advice, or some sort of basic strategy - they tank just in time to postpone their unlucky retirees for about five to ten years! Sound anything like "big, bad casinos?" lol Casinos are just an easy target for a big mouth who has little brains AND a conservative network behind him. Hope you got your ratings, Mr. Rooney! Were they worth your dignity?

Maybe it was where the Colonel used to live before he went on to join the army and patenet his fried chicken recipe.



Ok, Ill get it in before someone else. Colonel Sanders served in the Army as a private, and the title Colonel was an honorary title (Kentucky Colonel) bestowed by the Govenor in 1935, and recomissioned in 1950. (Source Wikipedia)



See? I've started disecting my own jokes to save you the bother.

I always liked that particular line from the Pooh books. I think Milne was just trying use some whimsical wordplay, or that it was an inside joke. You pointed out the double meaning of "living under." As a child, I thought that Mr. Sanders was a previous owner who forgot to take the letters off the house. I like my interpretation.



I always thought it was something Lewis Carroll would have written. He liked those sort of puns. Pooh shouldn't be deconstructed -- for that, read Ulysses.

Another more literal interpretation is that he found a real sign on his estate and incorporated it into his stories that he told his son. Once again, it is speculation, and not backed by any real evidence.

=====

I think Milne's enjoyment of using something with a double meaning (one for adults, and one for children) is more in keeping with his genius.



I like the second answer better, since they Nearly Catch a Woozle. He must have enjoyed reading the Lewis Carrol stories and James Joyce Ulysses where wordplay is paramount.



`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:

All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mome raths outgrabe.