yallallcrazy

Should give lower spin and lower flight. Might be perfect for you

Not big on changing putters. My most recent putter before the ZT I used for many years.

I’ve been using the CT for about a month or so. Really like it. It did take me a bit to get my distances down, first couple of rounds. It was kind of all over the place on longer putts. After an adjustment period, all that cleared up the biggest thing I like about it is it swings itself so easily. It is a heck of a lot less nerve-wracking over those 3-7 footers that are short enough to really expect to make, but long enough to miss.

quote:

---

Playing through has to be executed perfectly for it to not frick up the rest of the course behind the group that’s playing through.

---

Definitely true. The group being let through has to make a concerted effort to clear. Limit your pre-shot routine and minimal time on the green.

I’m a pretty staunch proponent of efficient play. If there is an entire hole open in front of you, you very definitely should be letting faster groups through.
All that said, a single should never expect to be let through. Playing as a single is the time to hit three or four golf balls and get a little practice in because there will definitely be some waiting.

Hope the weather holds out. That’s such a great tournament with a really cool format. Sadly, couldn’t play this year.

Great irons. Work well for a wide variety of handicaps. they have enough launch help that most handicap levels can use them. Pretty long as well but without those hotspots some irons can have, and they are consistent enough in distance and controllable enough that I know quite a few low single digit players who use them

To me, they are as close to a “cannot go too wrong” set as you can get. For any given person, they may not be the absolutely most optimal, but they would probably be reasonable

Played Solmar. Don’t have to stay in any certain property to get on.
Was really enjoyable.

lol
I noticed that as well. I figured it would be worthy of a comment.

There are any number of custom options you can get from hearing aid places.
Cheaper, non - custom fitted options with decent sound quality and good protection:

Otto noise barriers
Peltor eep 100 (or TEP200 but more $$)
Axil

I’ve used Otto and Axil. Like Otto better but they are more expensive.

quote:

---

Landry is technically correct but not practically so. Then practically take the taxpayer burden out of the technical contract. Replyreplies3... up vote5

---

Here’s the one I replied to. There are several others where you say ‘ it’s in ink’ etc

My point is, it doesn’t say the words ‘ the taxpayers are responsible’ so that cannot be taken out.

It’s just that if you ask an attorney who is responsible for the buyout and then you go down the entire cascade you eventually arrive at the taxpayer because LSU is a state entity.

LSU is the responsible party. LSU has many sources of funding but in the end, in a total Armageddon, the final rung in the ladder is the state, i.e. the taxpayers.

But, here’s the kicker. We are discussing buyout.
In the scenario that this would reach that far down the ladder of responsibility— just don’t fire the guy!!
Then there’s no buyout. And if the boosters don’t pay, the athletic department has gone insolvent, the university has gone insolvent, and the state has gone insolvent — losing football games won’t be the biggest issue.

The contract between a coach and a university is, and always will be, between the coach and the university.

That makes the university ultimately responsible

If it is a state university, that makes the taxpayers ultimately responsible

This is every coaching contract, and every university employee contract, and is not alterable unless you want to have a major booster hire the Coach directly as a personal employee. It is not alterable because the coach WORKS FOR THE UNIVERSITY.


However, university leaders will go out into the community and solicit donations to cover the cost of the Coach or the cost of the buyout.

If donors are unwilling to donate said funds, the coach will simply not be hired or fired. And to be honest, if donors are not willing to pony up the money for the hire buyout, maybe there is not enough consensus that the coach should be hired/fired in any event.

So, therefore, the taxpayer is “technically” responsible ( just like they are responsible for every other employee of any state university), but there is not a reasonable scenario where they would ever actually have to come up with the money.