Slow motion rehearsals--work!!!

[QUOTE=daveperkins]Come on.. cowards.. identity? I'm worried about my CC numbers, about my social security number going out on the web, sure.... but my face? Geez, what can anyone do to me there? I'm already ugly. And old. There are tens of millions of faces on youtube vids, nobody CARES.

if I was a 22 yr old beauty queen I'd worry about this, but not otherwise.

So HS, are you a 22 yr old beauty queen?

VIDEO[/QUOTE]


Ok Dave, I agree that if you're fat, old, out of shape, ugly and living from check to check, there's not much risk.

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]Ok Dave, I agree that if you're fat, old, out of shape, ugly and living from check to check, there's not much risk.[/QUOTE]

I think most insurance companies would disagree with that statement.

[QUOTE=famousdavis]I think most insurance companies would disagree with that statement.[/QUOTE]

I couldn't envision them insuring Dave, either.

Insurance Companies are nothing but a racket. 2 years ago I signed up for full coverage with Blue Cross- Blue Shield for 174.00 a month. Last year they went up on me to $250.00 a month. Last week I received notice that they needed to go up again to $347.00 a month. You know what I can do about it? SQUAT!!! That's what.

Insurance companies have us by the balls and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. If the government could do anything, they need to regulate the rate that insurance companies can charge clients. However, i think that would be unconstitutional, so I wouldn't be for it. Meanwhile, I will pay my premiums and be in discontent.

[QUOTE=SoonerBS]Insurance Companies are nothing but a racket. 2 years ago I signed up for full coverage with Blue Cross- Blue Shield for 174.00 a month. Last year they went up on me to $250.00 a month. Last week I received notice that they needed to go up again to $347.00 a month. You know what I can do about it? SQUAT!!! That's what.

Insurance companies have us by the balls and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. If the government could do anything, they need to regulate the rate that insurance companies can charge clients. However, i think that would be unconstitutional, so I wouldn't be for it. Meanwhile, I will pay my premiums and be in discontent.[/QUOTE]
Are you talking just health insurance here? Or are you talking income protection/house/car etc. It seems like a huge monthly premium if it's just for health.

[QUOTE=Not a hacker]Are you talking just health insurance here? Or are you talking income protection/house/car etc. It seems like a huge monthly premium if it's just for health.[/QUOTE]

That is just health insurance with a $1,000 deductible. I know a lot of people who pay a lot more than this for monthly premiums. All health insurance is adjusted according to area and region. I don't know how rates fare in other parts of our nation.

[QUOTE=SoonerBS]That is just health insurance with a $1,000 deductible. I know a lot of people who pay a lot more than this for monthly premiums. All health insurance is adjusted according to area and region. I don't know how rates fare in other parts of our nation.[/QUOTE]
My insurance jumped up about 12% last month and switched to a pay 2 months ahead of time format.

I buy my own insurance that is not part of a group policy...I have been trying to figure out what the hell got passed with this new health bill...No one seems to actually know. The best I can tell, is that most everyone should see a slight decrease in insurance costs except for people in my group. Young and healthy non group policy insurance holders look like they are headed for a 10-30% jump in premiums.

A $1000 deductible is a little excessive isn't it. Unless you're one of those chronically ill and feeble, I would think its better to go with like a $5000 deductible.

[QUOTE=The Purist]My insurance jumped up about 12% last month and switched to a pay 2 months ahead of time format.

I buy my own insurance that is not part of group policy...I have been trying to figure out what the hell got passed with this new health bill...No one seems to actually know. The best I can tell, is that most everyone should see a slight decrease in insurance costs except for people in my group. Young and healthy non group policy insurance holders look like they are headed for a 10-30% jump in premiums.

A $1000 deductible is a little excessive isn't it. Unless your one of those chronically ill and feeble,[B] I would think its better to go with like a $5000 deductible[/B].[/QUOTE]

I just did. I will now be paying $149.00 a month with a $5,000 deductible.

I went without health insurance for 30 years because I was very healthy and didn't ever think I needed it. But, a couple of years ago, my heart felt like it was skipping beats and I was having bad headaches, so I got worried. I bought the insurance with a $1,000 deductible thinking I may be using it soon. Turned out it was only an "over-stimulated heart" and an onsetting case of hypertension. I now take high blood pressure and cholesterol medication. My levels on everything is back to perfect and I am feeling great. So, whenever they sent me the jump in premium a few days ago, I switched to the $5,000 deductible. Still pisses me off though that they have gone up on my premium every year by great amounts.

[QUOTE=SoonerBS]I just did. I will now be paying $149.00 a month with a $5,000 deductible.

I went without health insurance for 30 years because I was very healthy and didn't ever think I needed it. But, a couple of years ago, my heart felt like it was skipping beats and I was having bad headaches, so I got worried. I bought the insurance with a $1,000 deductible thinking I may be using it soon. Turned out it was only an "over-stimulated heart" and an onsetting case of hypertension. I now take high blood pressure and cholesterol medication. My levels on everything is back to perfect and I am feeling great. So, whenever they sent me the jump in premium a few days ago, I switched to the $5,000 deductible. Still pisses me off though that they have gone up on my premium every year by great amounts.[/QUOTE]

Good decision. Every bill I have has been going up like crazy this year. Not much I can do about medical insurance, groceriers, water, and electric...but I'm gonna axe cable. I might spend more money on a dvr, antenna, computer interface, etc than I would have spent on cable in a year...but at least the money won't be going to cable or satellite. I am going to miss the Golfchannel, ESPN, and NFL network, but I can get some of their programming online.

with regard to the healthcare bill... i am very disapointed that our nation would go this route, it basically is in violation of our constitution... it seems that from what i can gather (and as it has been said that's not too much) healthcare is now like car insurance in some regards... everyone has to have it, but the difference is if you don't buy it from a 3rd party you have to pay for the governments, i disagree with this idea totally simply because i think we need less government involvement, and also i think the is pretty close to statestism, not to mention it goes directly against the constitution... the worst part is that if you are a 3rd party insurance company more regulations, taxes, and fines will be placed on you, causing rates to have to skyrocket just to stay in business... the US gov is edging out insurance companies so that they can make a buck and that's just wrong especially since it goes against the constitution (which liberals ignore all the time)

the US is simply ruining itsself from within, Ronald Reagan once said "If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth." well gentlemen we are failing...

This actually works for me with pitching and chipping mroe than anything else.

[QUOTE=SoonerBS]That is just health insurance with a $1,000 deductible. I know a lot of people who pay a lot more than this for monthly premiums. All health insurance is adjusted according to area and region. I don't know how rates fare in other parts of our nation.[/QUOTE]

Insurance for a family of 4 costs around $900/month if you pay for it out of pocket without the help of an employer. That's for Kaiser.

[QUOTE=SoonerBS]I just did. I will now be paying $149.00 a month with a $5,000 deductible.

I went without health insurance for 30 years because I was very healthy and didn't ever think I needed it. But, a couple of years ago, my heart felt like it was skipping beats and I was having bad headaches, so I got worried. I bought the insurance with a $1,000 deductible thinking I may be using it soon. Turned out it was only an "over-stimulated heart" and an onsetting case of hypertension. I now take high blood pressure and cholesterol medication. My levels on everything is back to perfect and I am feeling great. So, whenever they sent me the jump in premium a few days ago, I switched to the $5,000 deductible. Still pisses me off though that they have gone up on my premium every year by great amounts.[/QUOTE]

Can someone explain to me why if I walk into a hospital without insurance my cost is up to 3 times as much as it would be if I have insurance? Isn't it the same care, same liability, etc? Shouldn't the cost be the same? Along the same lines, when you're admitted you sign a contract that you are responsible for charges even if the insurance doesn't pay. Isn't it a little scary the the hospital could, if they choose to, hold you responsible for the portions the insurance doesn't cover?

Catastrophic coverage is better than nothing but it doesn't make sense to me that our system basically, by this virtue, has you waiting until you are very ill to see the doc. It also doesn't make sense that the system rewards this. There is more money to be gained by treating a disease, in your case sooner diabetes, that could get out of control instead of educating and prevention (routine checkups, blood work, etc.). Granted not everyone will take the advice or education but it's not accessible for many people in our current system.

[QUOTE=poe4soul]Can someone explain to me why if I walk into a hospital without insurance my cost is up to 3 times as much as it would be if I have insurance? Isn't it the same care, same liability, etc? Shouldn't the cost be the same? Along the same lines, when you're admitted you sign a contract that you are responsible for charges even if the insurance doesn't pay. Isn't it a little scary the the hospital could, if they choose to, hold you responsible for the portions the insurance doesn't cover?

Catastrophic coverage is better than nothing but it doesn't make sense to me that our system basically, by this virtue, has you waiting until you are very ill to see the doc. It also doesn't make sense that the system rewards this. There is more money to be gained by treating a disease, in your case sooner diabetes, that could get out of control instead of educating and prevention (routine checkups, blood work, etc.). Granted not everyone will take the advice or education but it's not accessible for many people in our current system.[/QUOTE]

Because insurance companies and medicare will only cover so much of the bill. The insurance company's coverage for you as an individual states that you have full coverage for a heart attack but they are only willing to pay the hospital a certain amount for heart attacks. You pay more with no insurance because they are trying to make up for the insurance companies not paying them the full amount, the people with no money that pay nothing and medicare paying even less than the insurance companies. Believe me, if you walk into a hospital and stay overnight and have no insurance you could be looking at a bill over $15,000. If you have any earnings, a home or other collateral they will hunt you down until you've paid. If you're illegal from Mexico they won't bother going after you. Once again, the honest people in this country get the hose. It's hard to explain in just a few sentences.

[QUOTE=poe4soul]Can someone explain to me why if I walk into a hospital without insurance my cost is up to 3 times as much as it would be if I have insurance? Isn't it the same care, same liability, etc? Shouldn't the cost be the same? Along the same lines, when you're admitted you sign a contract that you are responsible for charges even if the insurance doesn't pay. Isn't it a little scary the the hospital could, if they choose to, hold you responsible for the portions the insurance doesn't cover?

Catastrophic coverage is better than nothing but it doesn't make sense to me that our system basically, by this virtue, has you waiting until you are very ill to see the doc. It also doesn't make sense that the system rewards this. There is more money to be gained by treating a disease, in your case sooner diabetes, that could get out of control instead of educating and prevention (routine checkups, blood work, etc.). Granted not everyone will take the advice or education but it's not accessible for many people in our current system.[/QUOTE]

With insurance companies, at least hospitals know that they will be paid. They are not going to get paid what they charge because the insurance company negotiates back and forth with them and basically tells them what they will pay and what they will not. With people that do not have insurance, hat little form they sign saying that they will pay is not worth the paper it is signed on. Do you think all these Mexicans we have in the country actually pay for their services? Hell no they don't! You and I are paying extravagant amounts of money for health care because they will NOT pay. (Which brings up another topic that is a favorite of mine called the deportation of illegal immigrants.)

Poe, I don't have diabetes and there is no history of it in my family. Hypertension does run within my family though and daily stress doesn't do anything to make it better . . . . thus the regular medication.

Insurance companies are notorious for poor management of their funds. Remember us bailing out AIG?

[QUOTE=SoonerBS]With insurance companies, at least hospitals know that they will be paid. They are not going to get paid what they charge because the insurance company negotiates back and forth with them and basically tells them what they will pay and what they will not. With people that do not have insurance, hat little form they sign saying that they will pay is not worth the paper it is signed on. Do you think all these Mexicans we have in the country actually pay for their services? Hell no they don't! You and I are paying extravagant amounts of money for health care because they will NOT pay. (Which brings up another topic that is a favorite of mine called the deportation of illegal immigrants.)

Poe, I don't have diabetes and there is no history of it in my family. Hypertension does run within my family though and daily stress doesn't do anything to make it better . . . . thus the regular medication.

Insurance companies are notorious for poor management of their funds. Remember us bailing out AIG?[/QUOTE]

All the more reason to have a shoot to kill policy for the border patrol.

How did Larry's awesome slow motion practice thread turn into an insurance discussion???

[QUOTE=Kiwi Player]How did Larry's awesome slow motion practice thread turn into an insurance discussion???[/QUOTE]

These questions and others like it will continue to puzzle us all.

[QUOTE=SoonerBS]Insurance Companies are nothing but a racket. 2 years ago I signed up for full coverage with Blue Cross- Blue Shield for 174.00 a month. Last year they went up on me to $250.00 a month. Last week I received notice that they needed to go up again to $347.00 a month. You know what I can do about it? SQUAT!!! That's what.

Insurance companies have us by the balls and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. If the government could do anything, they need to regulate the rate that insurance companies can charge clients. However, i think that would be unconstitutional, so I wouldn't be for it. Meanwhile, I will pay my premiums and be in discontent.[/QUOTE]

Insurance companies are public corporations. You can see their entire financial situation-- because they must reveal it to investors and the SEC.

They earn about 2% profit, Google earns 20%+ Health Insurance stockholders (you if you have a 401K) demand that the company earns a profit and avoid losing money. So they raise rates.

They must pay false claims. They must pay fraudulent claims. They must pay when doctors order dozens of unnecessary tests in order to avoid lawsuits.

And so they must raise their rates. If you think that is something, just wait until they go out of business and the government tries to take over. They will face MILLIONS of new claims as the feeding frenzy begins. There will be radical rationing because socialized medicine has never worked anywhere, ever.

Larry

[QUOTE=SoonerBS]With insurance companies, at least hospitals know that they will be paid. They are not going to get paid what they charge because the insurance company negotiates back and forth with them and basically tells them what they will pay and what they will not. With people that do not have insurance, hat little form they sign saying that they will pay is not worth the paper it is signed on. Do you think all these Mexicans we have in the country actually pay for their services? Hell no they don't! You and I are paying extravagant amounts of money for health care because they will NOT pay. (Which brings up another topic that is a favorite of mine called the deportation of illegal immigrants.)

Poe, I don't have diabetes and there is no history of it in my family. Hypertension does run within my family though and daily stress doesn't do anything to make it better . . . . thus the regular medication.

Insurance companies are notorious for poor management of their funds. Remember us bailing out AIG?[/QUOTE]

My bad on the diabetes, bad memory here. It must be the medication.

I understand all of the insurance, no insurance, illegal emigrants, cost of running a business/hospital. (BTW - The form I reviewed actually gave the hospital the option to roll your debt to a credit card and then sell it to a collection agency. But I digress.) What I hear you saying is that the uninsured, responsible people with money pay extra costs to cover people who aren't covered and for the others that underpay (read insured?). Seems a bit wrong to me. Especially if you are taken to a hospital in an ambulance and not of free will. Shouldn't this cost be spread out through the whole business?

In Oregon there was a lawsuit on this very issue. I think it was against Providence, a non-profit hospital. Part of the evaluation included the difference in charges and I believe they looked into salaries of the CEO, CFO and other highly paid employees to see if they were in line with the industry. The hospital lost and refunded some very large sums of money for an extensive period, 6 or 9 years. I guess I'm not the only one that seems this to be wrong.

[QUOTE=Larryrsf]Insurance companies are public corporations. You can see their entire financial situation-- because they must reveal it to investors and the SEC.

They earn about 2% profit, Google earns 20%+ Health Insurance stockholders (you if you have a 401K) demand that the company earns a profit and avoid losing money. So they raise rates.[/quote]

As usual, you're wrong.

UnitedHealth earned more like 6.6% profit, as reported in their last annual report, Aetna about 6.2%, Wellpoint about 5.4%.

[quote]They must pay false claims. They must pay fraudulent claims. They must pay when doctors order dozens of unnecessary tests in order to avoid lawsuits.[/quote]

And yet they're still making good profits.

[quote]And so they must raise their rates. If you think that is something, just wait until they go out of business and the government tries to take over. They will face MILLIONS of new claims as the feeding frenzy begins. There will be radical rationing because socialized medicine has never worked anywhere, ever.[/QUOTE]

I find it hard to put much stock in the business assessment of the guy who tried to sell this:

[URL="http://www.delmardata.com/dmd_products.htm"]The Grand&Toy money clip[/URL]

[QUOTE=Larryrsf]Insurance companies are public corporations. You can see their entire financial situation-- because they must reveal it to investors and the SEC.

They earn about 2% profit, Google earns 20%+ Health Insurance stockholders (you if you have a 401K) demand that the company earns a profit and avoid losing money. So they raise rates.

They must pay false claims. They must pay fraudulent claims. They must pay when doctors order dozens of unnecessary tests in order to avoid lawsuits.

And so they must raise their rates. If you think that is something, just wait until they go out of business and the government tries to take over. They will face MILLIONS of new claims as the feeding frenzy begins. There will be radical rationing because socialized medicine has never worked anywhere, ever.

Larry[/QUOTE]

Larry, it is also well known that they overpay their administrators at the top end and blow money on extravagant spending. Has it been so long that we do not remember the bonuses and resorts? You are a typical capitalist republican, Larry, you defend corporations and big business at all costs and blame the government. I use to be a good Republican, too, but then I wisened up and became an Independent. The fact is that corporations and big business had to be BAILED OUT by the government recently because of poor money management. There is plenty of blame to go around so don't dump it completely on the government's shoulders.

It's also well known that insurance companies look for all the loopholes to avoid paying claims and they raise rates at a drop of the hat. They are really good about suckering clients in with "low premium" claims and then once they have them going they raise rates yearly by 40-70%. That is exactly what has happened to me. So, you'll have to excuse me if I don't join you in sucking the Republican tit on this one.

[QUOTE=SoonerBS]Larry, it is also well known that they overpay their administrators at the top end and blow money on extravagant spending. Has it been so long that we do not remember the bonuses and resorts? You are a typical capitalist republican, Larry, you defend corporations and big business at all costs and blame the government. I use to be a good Republican, too, but then I wisened up and became an Independent. The fact is that corporations and big business had to be BAILED OUT by the government recently because of poor money management. There is plenty of blame to go around so don't dump it completely on the government's shoulders.

It's also well known that insurance companies look for all the loopholes to avoid paying claims and they raise rates at a drop of the hat. They are really good about suckering clients in with "low premium" claims and then once they have them going they raise rates yearly by 40-70%. That is exactly what has happened to me. So, you'll have to excuse me if I don't join you in sucking the Republican tit on this one.[/QUOTE]

You beat me to it. There's a difference of reporting profits and making money. In fact I had this same discussion with one of my key employees and gave the example that I could join the locale CC in a corporate membership for me and my family. I could "write it off" as a business expense or cost of business. Report less profit, personally get bigger benefits and distribute less bonuses to him and others. He didn't like that example very much. It also reminded me of the CEO taking corporate jets to DC to ask for government bailouts. They weren't making any profits either but I bet they still got their pay checks...

[QUOTE=pingman360]with regard to the healthcare bill... i am very disapointed that our nation would go this route, it basically is in violation of our constitution... it seems that from what i can gather (and as it has been said that's not too much) healthcare is now like car insurance in some regards... everyone has to have it, but the difference is if you don't buy it from a 3rd party [B]you have to pay for the governments[/B], i disagree with this idea totally simply because i think we need less government involvement, and also i think the is pretty close to statestism, not to mention it goes directly against the constitution... the worst part is that if you are a 3rd party insurance company more regulations, taxes, and fines will be placed on you, causing rates to have to skyrocket just to stay in business... the US gov is edging out insurance companies so that they can make a buck and that's just wrong especially since it goes against the constitution (which liberals ignore all the time)

the US is simply ruining itsself from within, Ronald Reagan once said "If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth." well gentlemen we are failing...[/QUOTE]
Yah, pingman that would be bad if it was in the bill but it's not. That was the single payer and most certainly would be constitutional. Look at social security and medicare.

The unconstitutional claim is that you are forced to buy health care insurance from the 3rd party. With car insurance you do have the choice to not drive a car and not be required to own insurance. Besides the car insurance laws are state laws and not federal laws and not a fed constitutional issue. This is states rights verses fed rights. That is why attorney generals are bringing the claims.

Nice video. My 3 yr old son asked me "What's wrong with that man." I had to explain that's what a crappy golf swing looks like if you've been reading too many magazines.

[QUOTE=wofat]Nice video. My 3 yr old son asked me "What's wrong with that man." I had to explain that's what a crappy golf swing looks like if you've been reading too many magazines.[/QUOTE]

Wow. Mindless criticism of a "DRILL," done in slow motion in order to ingrain the correct sequence.

Now post yours.

Its easy to throw throw rocks from the shadows. Now put up or shut up.

Larry

[QUOTE=Larryrsf]Wow. Mindless criticism of a "DRILL," done in slow motion in order to ingrain the correct sequence.

Now post yours.

Its easy to throw throw rocks from the shadows. Now put up or shut up.[/QUOTE]

Done already, Larry.

Are you going to take me up on my challenge and let me hear from your pro on how my swing looks to him?

:)

[QUOTE=SoonerBS]Larry, it is also well known that they overpay their administrators at the top end and blow money on extravagant spending. Has it been so long that we do not remember the bonuses and resorts? You are a typical capitalist republican, Larry, you defend corporations and big business at all costs and blame the government. I use to be a good Republican, too, but then I wisened up and became an Independent. The fact is that corporations and big business had to be BAILED OUT by the government recently because of poor money management. There is plenty of blame to go around so don't dump it completely on the government's shoulders.

It's also well known that insurance companies look for all the loopholes to avoid paying claims and they raise rates at a drop of the hat. They are really good about suckering clients in with "low premium" claims and then once they have them going they raise rates yearly by 40-70%. That is exactly what has happened to me. So, you'll have to excuse me if I don't join you in sucking the Republican tit on this one.[/QUOTE]

"Overpay?" Companies and entities such as pension fund managers, etc. pay people in proportion to the size of the job, the pile they are reponsible for. People handling billions of dollars are paid millions of dollars. Even the CEO of big charities like the Red Cross get that kind of salary. There are no exceptions that I know of. They work their way up to that level through years of incrementally increased responsibility. If they can't pay them enough to attract top people as civil servants, they pay them as contractors. That's going on here in San Diego City, San Diego County, and the state of California-- regardless of every other consideration, whether the fund is profitable or losing money, the managers still take their salaries and bonuses in proportion to the size of the funds they handle.

Insurance companies are "for profit" corporations doing a needed service; they have thousands of staff who are highly skilled. If you had spent 30 years working your way up through financial management positions with increasing levels of expertise and experience required, you might get a shot at a CEO spot with a million+ salary and bonus. Their Board of Directors decides that-- on behalf of the shareholders. Smart and successful people sit on major boards, so you can be assured that smart folks decide to pay someone that kind of money....They don't do it lightly.

Larry

[QUOTE=Larryrsf]"Overpay?" Companies and entities such as pension fund managers, etc. pay people in proportion to the size of the job, the pile they are reponsible for. People handling billions of dollars are paid millions of dollars. Even the CEO of big charities like the Red Cross get that kind of salary. There are no exceptions that I know of. They work their way up to that level through years of incrementally increased responsibility. If they can't pay them enough to attract top people as civil servants, they pay them as contractors. That's going on here in San Diego City, San Diego County, and the state of California-- regardless of every other consideration, whether the fund is profitable or losing money, the managers still take their salaries and bonuses in proportion to the size of the funds they handle. [/quote]

Wrong yet again. The CEO of the Red Cross earns less than $500,000; at least an order of magnitude less than you're talking about and probably two.

[quote]Insurance companies are "for profit" corporations doing a needed service; they have thousands of staff who are highly skilled. If you had spent 30 years working your way up through financial management positions with increasing levels of expertise and experience required, you might get a shot at a CEO spot with a million+ salary and bonus. Their Board of Directors decides that-- on behalf of the shareholders. Smart and successful people sit on major boards, so you can be assured that smart folks decide to pay someone that kind of money....They don't do it lightly.[/QUOTE]

Please. Directorships are handed back and forth between big companies with the CEO of Firm A on Firm B's board and vice versa; scratching each others' backs.

U can't believe you guys get slugged so hard for health insurance. There is no way that those types of premiums would reflect costs of health. I know health costs are high, but not that high. These premiums are obviously to compensate for bad money management and exhorbitant CEO salaries and bonuses.

[QUOTE=Not a hacker]U can't believe you guys get slugged so hard for health insurance. There is no way that those types of premiums would reflect costs of health. I know health costs are high, but not that high. [B]These premiums are obviously to compensate for bad money management and exhorbitant CEO salaries and bonuses[/B].[/QUOTE]

Not to mention the costs of maintaining, umm... there's a word for this... I think conservatives loathe it actually (at least as it relates to government), it'll come to me in a second...

Oh yeah - bureaucracy. Corporate bureaucracy = GOOD; Government bureaucracy = BAD.

Hey - if you can't avoid the costs, at least pick a side... amirite??

Freedom. You get to choose who beats you up for your lunch money today.



FON

[QUOTE=FreakOfNature]Not to mention the costs of maintaining, umm... there's a word for this... I think conservatives loathe it actually (at least as it relates to government), it'll come to me in a second...

Oh yeah - bureaucracy. Corporate bureaucracy = GOOD; Government bureaucracy = BAD.

Hey - if you can't avoid the costs, at least pick a side... amirite??

Freedom. You get to choose who beats you up for your lunch money today.



FON[/QUOTE]

Naive! Get someone without big-time executive ability to be your company's CEO. Wow! That is moronic! Never works! No responsible company does that!!!

And we have a great example-- Obama as President! The most ridiculous possible scenario--a total incompetent, someone not qualified to ADVISE a president, is sitting in the Oval Office. And as a result, this country is the laughingstock of the world--especially of the part that is being asked to invest in America. When they refuse--your pension becomes worthless-- even a government SS or civil service pension will become liable...I just want those who voted for him to be held accountable-- brought forward and asked why on EARTH they foisted this moron on us??? What the HEJJ were they thinking? "Hope and Change?"

Unemployment will continue UP, housing foreclosures will continue UP, and small businesses will continue to close their doors. Socialism hits America.

Larry

[QUOTE=poe4soul]You beat me to it. There's a difference of reporting profits and making money. In fact I had this same discussion with one of my key employees and gave the example that I could join the locale CC in a corporate membership for me and my family. I could "write it off" as a business expense or cost of business. Report less profit, personally get bigger benefits and distribute less bonuses to him and others. He didn't like that example very much. It also reminded me of the CEO taking corporate jets to DC to ask for government bailouts. They weren't making any profits either but I bet they still got their pay checks...[/QUOTE]
You could also take it much further. You could also give yourself a Lincoln navigator for a company vehicle, buy a press box for entertaining "business guests" at Oregon University, and even buy a company yacht.

You might also want to think about overpaying some of your more shady suppliers, in return for some individual kick backs at a later date.

[QUOTE=Larryrsf]Naive! Get someone without big-time executive ability to be your company's CEO. Wow! That is moronic! Never works! No responsible company does that!!!

And we have a great example-- Obama as President! The most ridiculous possible scenario--a total incompetent, someone not qualified to ADVISE a president, is sitting in the Oval Office. [B]And as a result, this country is the laughingstock of the world--especially of the part that is being asked to invest in America[/B]. When they refuse--your pension becomes worthless-- even a government SS or civil service pension will become liable...I just want those who voted for him to be held accountable-- brought forward and asked why on EARTH they foisted this moron on us??? What the HEJJ were they thinking? "Hope and Change?"

Unemployment will continue UP, housing foreclosures will continue UP, and small businesses will continue to close their doors. Socialism hits America.

Larry[/QUOTE]


Why the laughingstock? Probably because you allowed corporations to bankrupt your economy due to your opposition to government bureaucracy. Checks and balances, you know? The reason your left leg isn't a foot shorter than your right leg. Equilibrium. That sort of thing.

The lack of checks and balances is what creates these economic bubbles - the battle for power between corporate and government bureaucracies for control over the flow of money is where there needs to be balance, because when one side gets too much influence over the economy they're too inherently greedy to avoid popping the bubble of their own free will.

I guess it's been too long since the Great Depression for investors and banks to have learned from the mistakes of the past. A little balance would mean sustainability, predictability, and profitability - it just wouldn't benefit so few so greatly as the imbalance that created this mess.



FON

[QUOTE=alangbaker]As usual, you're wrong.


I find it hard to put much stock in the business assessment of the guy who tried to sell this:

[URL="http://www.delmardata.com/dmd_products.htm"]The Grand&Toy money clip[/URL][/QUOTE]

Larry, did you really market this "product?" How did it do?

[QUOTE=Larryrsf]Naive! Get someone without big-time executive ability to be your company's CEO. Wow! That is moronic! Never works! No responsible company does that!!! [/quote]

Sayeth that man who thought [URL="http://www.delmardata.com/dmd_products.htm"]this[/URL] was a product that people would flock to....

Sooner hijacked this thread with the insurance costs I believe. I'm not sure what prompted it, but to each their own.

Pingman or Collegegolfer help me out with this mindset if you wouldn't mind. Larry really likes to focus on forcing the lower body action and aggressively shifting his weight to the left in all his slow motion crap. Shouldn't the lower body action really just happen naturally? I notice that if I start really trying to turn and shift like that, I'm just gonna get way in front of it and spray it all over the place and with terrible balance.

[QUOTE=Larryrsf]Naive! Get someone without big-time executive ability to be your company's CEO. Wow! That is moronic! Never works! No responsible company does that!!!

And we have a great example-- Obama as President! The most ridiculous possible scenario--a total incompetent, someone not qualified to ADVISE a president, is sitting in the Oval Office. And as a result, this country is the laughingstock of the world--especially of the part that is being asked to invest in America. When they refuse--your pension becomes worthless-- even a government SS or civil service pension will become liable...I just want those who voted for him to be held accountable-- brought forward and asked why on EARTH they foisted this moron on us??? What the HEJJ were they thinking? "Hope and Change?"

Unemployment will continue UP, housing foreclosures will continue UP, and small businesses will continue to close their doors. Socialism hits America.

Larry[/QUOTE]
Like we had a choice. Hope and Change or Team Rogue.

Ultimately you can blame bush/chaney/rove for the dems taking power of the congress and white house. It's their poor decisions that put the dems in power. The pendulum will swing again. But I predict the incumbents from both sides of the isle will be voted out. Dem's will loose more because they have more to loose. Simply people are getting fed up with both of their nonsense and there are more and more independent voters.

[QUOTE=Mward2002][B]Sooner hijacked this thread with the insurance costs I believe. I'm not sure what prompted it, but to each their own.[/B]

Pingman or Collegegolfer help me out with this mindset if you wouldn't mind. Larry really likes to focus on forcing the lower body action and aggressively shifting his weight to the left in all his slow motion crap. Shouldn't the lower body action really just happen naturally? I notice that if I start really trying to turn and shift like that, I'm just gonna get way in front of it and spray it all over the place and with terrible balance.[/QUOTE]


I was only doing my GR duty . . . . .

[QUOTE=SoonerBS]I was only doing my GR duty . . . . .[/QUOTE]

The real question here is why after a successful thread-jacking would anyone want to bring it back to the original subject? Any tangent is a good tangent especially on one of lariesrf's threads....

[QUOTE=Mward2002]Sooner hijacked this thread with the insurance costs I believe. I'm not sure what prompted it, but to each their own.

Pingman or Collegegolfer help me out with this mindset if you wouldn't mind. Larry really likes to focus on forcing the lower body action and aggressively shifting his weight to the left in all his slow motion crap. Shouldn't the lower body action really just happen naturally? I notice that if I start really trying to turn and shift like that, I'm just gonna get way in front of it and spray it all over the place and with terrible balance.[/QUOTE]

One of the big problems with trying to figure out what you should do with your swing from what other people say is that you can't feel what they feel.

Should there be lower body action in the golf swing? Yes. Of course.

But should it happen naturally? That depends on what's "natural" for each person.

[QUOTE=poe4soul]Like we had a choice. Hope and Change or Team Rogue.

Ultimately you can blame bush/chaney/rove for the dems taking power of the congress and white house. It's their poor decisions that put the dems in power. The pendulum will swing again. But I predict the incumbents from both sides of the isle will be voted out. Dem's will loose more because they have more to loose. Simply people are getting fed up with both of their nonsense and there are more and more independent voters.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. God, it would be nice to have some new blood in office that is capable of thinking for themselves. Blind partisanship shows a lack of spine and intelligence. It would be nice to see 20-30% independent candidates winning spots next election.

[QUOTE=alangbaker]One of the big problems with trying to figure out what you should do with your swing from what other people say is that you can't feel what they feel.

Should there be lower body action in the golf swing? Yes. Of course.

But should it happen naturally? That depends on what's "natural" for each person.[/QUOTE]

True, I'm way to aggressive with my lower body and I have to think about shoulder turn and not getting to aggressive with the lower body or I get stuck.

[QUOTE=The Purist]Agreed. God, it would be nice to have some new blood in office that is capable of thinking for themselves. Blind partisanship shows a lack of spine and intelligence. It would be nice to see 20-30% independent candidates winning spots next election.[/QUOTE]

Romney says his mistake was not talking almost exclusively about business, jobs, and the economy, his long and strong suits. He might have beaten McCain--who admitted that he knew nothing of those subjects.

Romney might have beaten Obama---

Regardless we need a Romney now-- because things are getting worse with nothing on the horizon to give hope that unemployment will ease or real estate prices will stop dropping. This recession could become a depression if China, et. al. realize America is an irresponsible borrower-- and stop buying our bonds. Some think this is Obama's plan-- to take us down to a depression and then "save" America with Socialism-- as was done in Germany in the 30s.

Larry

[QUOTE=poe4soul]True, I'm way to aggressive with my lower body and I have to think about shoulder turn and not getting to aggressive with the lower body or I get stuck.[/QUOTE]

Much can be overdone-- especially the lateral hip drive toward the target. That must go only until the front leg is vertical.

But the hip TURN toward the target to lead the hips cannot be done too aggressively or too much--according to Hogan. The hip TURN must lead the shoulder TURN. Tiger became champion by "firing" his hips.

Larry

[QUOTE=Larryrsf]Romney says his mistake was not talking almost exclusively about business, jobs, and the economy, his long and strong suits. He might have beaten McCain--who admitted that he knew nothing of those subjects.

Romney might have beaten Obama---

Regardless we need a Romney now-- because things are getting worse with nothing on the horizon to give hope that unemployment will ease or real estate prices will stop dropping. This recession could become a depression if China, et. al. realize America is an irresponsible borrower-- and stop buying our bonds. Some think this is Obama's plan-- to take us down to a depression and then "save" America with Socialism-- as was done in Germany in the 30s.

Larry[/QUOTE]

Larry, now you've just gone out into la la land. You've been listening to Hannity and Limbaugh too often. I'm fiscally conservative and can't stand seeing Obama in the White House or all of the money he's spent. However, in no way do I believe that he is evil or has motives to destroy the country. George W was a horrible leader as well. I don't understand this need for people to stay on their side no matter what and to throw insults at the other side no matter what. THAT is a huge problem in this country. If a Republican were in office you would applaud them no matter what they achieved or didn't achieve. Don't you think there's something wrong with that?

[QUOTE=famousdavis]Larry, now you've just gone out into la la land. You've been listening to Hannity and Limbaugh too often. I'm fiscally conservative and can't stand seeing Obama in the White House or all of the money he's spent. However, in no way do I believe that he is evil or has motives to destroy the country. George W was a horrible leader as well. I don't understand this need for people to stay on their side no matter what and to throw insults at the other side no matter what. THAT is a huge problem in this country. If a Republican were in office you would applaud them no matter what they achieved or didn't achieve. Don't you think there's something wrong with that?[/QUOTE]

You know what the main problem is FD? That people like you and me and most folks with common sense(fiscally conservative) are the majority, and there is noone that represents us. Term limits in congress, campaign finace reform, and line item veto would solve a lot if not most of our problems.

[QUOTE=famousdavis]Larry, now you've just gone out into la la land. You've been listening to Hannity and Limbaugh too often. I'm fiscally conservative and can't stand seeing Obama in the White House or all of the money he's spent. However, in no way do I believe that he is evil or has motives to destroy the country. George W was a horrible leader as well. I don't understand this need for people to stay on their side no matter what and to throw insults at the other side no matter what. THAT is a huge problem in this country. If a Republican were in office you would applaud them no matter what they achieved or didn't achieve. Don't you think there's something wrong with that?[/QUOTE]

He applauded Duke Cunningham...

...right up until the moment they close the door on his cell.

If Republicans were smart they'd just drop the abortion issue and say "no comment" when it comes to religion. Rush Limbaugh equates providing birth control at high schools to providing kids with beds to have sex in. It makes Republicans look like they're from the dark ages. Kids in high school are having sex...not because they are given protection. Gee, if they are having sex then maybe it's a good idea to teach them about birth control and STD's.

[QUOTE=famousdavis]If Republicans were smart they'd just drop the abortion issue and say "no comment" when it comes to religion. Rush Limbaugh equates providing birth control at high schools to providing kids with beds to have sex in. It makes Republicans look like they're from the dark ages. Kids in high school are having sex...not because they are given protection. Gee, if they are having sex then maybe it's a good idea to teach them about birth control and STD's.[/QUOTE]

[URL="http://www.treelobsters.com/2010/02/131-safety-measures.html"]Driving abstinence[/URL]

By the way, my new avatar shows the Ping Eye 2 plus model. I actually play the Ping Eye 2 square groove model. It has less offset and not as much perimeter weighting in the toe. The sole is wider in the square groove model as well and, of course, it has square grooves. I just wanted to lay this to rest as I'm sure some of you were wondering. There is actually a model out there called the Ping Eye 2 Plus (no +). This was the model made in 1989. It had the same shape head that's in my avatar but it had no + sign in the cavity and had the square grooves. Later, they put the + in the cavity and changed the grooves to conform to USGA rules. You'll never hear of any exciting stories like that from Mizuno.

Sooner, I applaud you for doing your duty. I think it'll keep the thread going at least another 30 posts if not more.

Larry, yes you can fire your hips too much or too aggressively. The downswing should be a blend of the upper and lower body moving together. If you fire the hips too early or too quickly, they can only move so much before they physically cannot turn counterclockwise anymore. Once they stop, you're dead meat consistency wise.

AB - Yeah feel is always different for people but you shouldn't try and force anything. Larry's trying to force these positions instead of just letting them happen.

[QUOTE=Mward2002]Sooner, I applaud you for doing your duty. I think it'll keep the thread going at least another 30 posts if not more.

Larry, yes you can fire your hips too much or too aggressively. The downswing should be a blend of the upper and lower body moving together. If you fire the hips too early or too quickly, they can only move so much before they physically cannot turn counterclockwise anymore. Once they stop, you're dead meat consistency wise.

AB - Yeah feel is always different for people but you shouldn't try and force anything. Larry's trying to force these positions instead of just letting them happen.[/QUOTE]

I agree... ...in general. But exaggerating positions to make a change is a valid part of learning something physical. And Larry's swing is actually a [I]little[/I] better.

Where ol' Lar gets himself in trouble is not realizing that these exaggerated positions and movements he's making are exercises for [I]his[/I] benefit and not the ultimate goal.

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]Ok Dave, I agree that if you're fat, old, out of shape, ugly and living from check to check, there's not much risk.[/QUOTE]

I'm golden. :-)

[QUOTE=famousdavis]If Republicans were smart they'd just drop the abortion issue and say "no comment" when it comes to religion. Rush Limbaugh equates providing birth control at high schools to providing kids with beds to have sex in. It makes Republicans look like they're from the dark ages. Kids in high school are having sex...not because they are given protection. Gee, if they are having sex then maybe it's a good idea to teach them about birth control and STD's.[/QUOTE]

GOod grief, FD... if you handed a kid a bottle of whiskey and told him he's too young to drink and he should wait... what do you think will happen tonight?

Same thing happens with the stupid condoms. Kids will be kids. I know I was. If you take away the penalty (pregnancy) by HANDING THEM protection, what are you encouraging them to do?

:-)

But what diff does it make anyways... I heard today about a school that helped a 15 yr old girl get an abortion without telling her parents.

Our tax dollars at work. If that same 15 yr old tried to pray in school the principal would demand that her parents be arrested for corrupting her.

[QUOTE=daveperkins]GOod grief, FD... if you handed a kid a bottle of whiskey and told him he's too young to drink and he should wait... what do you think will happen tonight?

Same thing happens with the stupid condoms. Kids will be kids. I know I was. If you take away the penalty (pregnancy) by HANDING THEM protection, what are you encouraging them to do?

:-)

But what diff does it make anyways... I heard today about a school that helped a 15 yr old girl get an abortion without telling her parents.

Our tax dollars at work. If that same 15 yr old tried to pray in school the principal would demand that her parents be arrested for corrupting her.[/QUOTE]

Dave, it's not like they are handing out condoms in the lunch line. I think it's OK to provide condoms if it is accompanied by the explanation that IF they are going to engage in sexual activity then it's important to use protection and here is why....

Your liquor analogy doesn't fly. If you said that you were giving a kid that is currently drinking some AA literature then I would say you made a good analogy. That fact is many high school kids have sex. Some don't. Are you telling me that a boy in high school gets to have sex because someone gives him a condom? Either you have the opportunity or you don't. All the school is doing is giving protection to those that have the opportunity or are already engaged.

[QUOTE=daveperkins]GOod grief, FD... if you handed a kid a bottle of whiskey and told him he's too young to drink and he should wait... what do you think will happen tonight?

Same thing happens with the stupid condoms. Kids will be kids. I know I was. If you take away the penalty (pregnancy) by HANDING THEM protection, what are you encouraging them to do?

:-)

But what diff does it make anyways... I heard today about a school that helped a 15 yr old girl get an abortion without telling her parents.

Our tax dollars at work. [B] If that same 15 yr old tried to pray in school the principal would demand that her parents be arrested for corrupting her.[/B][/QUOTE]

That outright BS. She can pray in school all she wants if it doesn't cause substantial disruption the others trying to get an education.

The rulings from the supreme courts in regards to church and state separation is that state sponsored activities (school for instance) must pass these three tests:
1. Have a secular purpose;
2. Must neither advance nor inhibit religion as its primary effect, and;
3. Must not result in an excessive entanglement between government and religion.

The fact is the GOP has no plan to outlaw abortion. They talk the talk but if it was outlawed there gravy train of money from the anti-abortion groups would dry up. The GOP will put on a show but no way in he77 they are going to severe their easy flow of money.

Exaggeration slow motions that are right, absolutely. If he did that weird lower body move in conjunction with moving his upper body at the same time I'd be ok with that. However in the video he took down (QUIT DOING THAT DAMN IT!) he does the leg thing and then moves the shoulders. It's just going to ingrain a worse habit, not to mention he's trying to do a motion you just can't do in full speed without some sort of injury occurring.

[QUOTE=famousdavis]Larry, now you've just gone out into la la land. You've been listening to Hannity and Limbaugh too often. I'm fiscally conservative and can't stand seeing Obama in the White House or all of the money he's spent. However, in no way do I believe that he is evil or has motives to destroy the country. George W was a horrible leader as well. I don't understand this need for people to stay on their side no matter what and to throw insults at the other side no matter what. THAT is a huge problem in this country. If a Republican were in office you would applaud them no matter what they achieved or didn't achieve. Don't you think there's something wrong with that?[/QUOTE]

Wow, something I agree with FD on. I couldn't agree more. The talk show pundits that have created a team-cheerleader situation in politics (*you know the type, a la Larry, that you speak of) that would have you believe that all dems think this, all repubs think that, and we all must pick a side and cheer like it's the superbowl.

Unfortunately, in this country, individuals no longer seem to actually think for themselves about politics. They instead just wait for the d-bag on the radio / tv to tell them what they're suppose to be cheering for.

[QUOTE=Larryrsf]Much can be overdone-- especially the lateral hip drive toward the target. That must go only until the front leg is vertical.

But the hip TURN toward the target to lead the hips cannot be done too aggressively or too much--according to Hogan. The hip TURN must lead the shoulder TURN. Tiger became champion by "firing" his hips.

Larry[/QUOTE]
Explain to me why Tiger hits big blocks then.

[QUOTE=poe4soul]Explain to me why Tiger hits big blocks then.[/QUOTE]

That isn't something he can find ("verbatim" mind!) in one of his books...

:D

[quote=Larryrsf]Hey, a few months ago I shot 77 from the tips in a tournament on a very tough golf course "Red Hawk" in Temecula, CA. look it up.

So what? My play that day was UGLY. My swing was OTT every time. I either sliced or pull-hooked many times. I missed most fairways and nearly all the greens-- but I scored because I was a magician at recovering and got pretty lucky on the par3s. I hit it closest to the pin three times and won all the "skins."

I shot 90+ the next tournament with that same group-- which demonstrated the inconsistency anyone has with poor fundamentals. I don't want to play like that. I would have quit golf and resumed playing tennis if I couldn't learn to swing correctly. Hence the present series of lessons and drills.

Larry[/quote]

[SIZE=3][COLOR=dimgray] --- WOW --- [/COLOR][/SIZE]

[QUOTE=poe4soul]Explain to me why Tiger hits big blocks then.[/QUOTE]

I have no idea why or even if Tiger blocks. But I do know that our hips must lead our shoulders in the turn toward the target. A dozen good golf swing books explain why. I suggest "Swing like a Pro" for the most easily understood.

But there is no substitute for lessons. None of us, not even touring pros, can know what we are actually doing. You need another set of eyes. And as we progress, we need the advice of someone who has gone along that same path himself. A good pro remembers when he was learning-- how the drills felt and how it felt when he finally "got it."

I am scheduled for another lesson this afternoon. I will not stop until I have it. The only difference between the accomplished and the mediocre is persistence. Nobody would pay money to listen to someone play guitar who had not been VERY persistent.

later

[quote=Larryrsf]Don't you love i? High handicappers criticizing the swing of the best in the world.

I have no idea why or even if Tiger blocks. But I do know that our hips must lead our shoulders in the turn toward the target. A dozen good golf swing books explain why. I suggest "Swing like a Pro" for the most easily understood.

But there is no substitute for lessons. None of us, not even touring pros, can know what we are actually doing. You need another set of eyes. And as we progress, we need the advice of someone who has gone along that same path himself. A good pro remembers when he was learning-- how the drills felt and how it felt when he finally "got it."

I am scheduled for another lesson this afternoon. I will not stop until I have it. [B]The only difference between the accomplished and the mediocre is persistence. Nobody would pay money to listen to someone play guitar who had not been VERY persistent. [/B]

later[/quote]

Don't forget about ABILITY Larry. Some people just don't have it, don't get it and will never live up to their own expectations......:cool:

[QUOTE=Larryrsf]I have no idea why or even if Tiger blocks. But I do know that our hips must lead our shoulders in the turn toward the target. A dozen good golf swing books explain why. I suggest "Swing like a Pro" for the most easily understood. [/quote]

Tiger hits big blocks. You do know what a block is, don't you?

[quote]But there is no substitute for lessons. None of us, not even touring pros, can know what we are actually doing. You need another set of eyes. And as we progress, we need the advice of someone who has gone along that same path himself. A good pro remembers when he was learning-- how the drills felt and how it felt when he finally "got it." [/quote]

Lessons can be very helpful, there's no doubt about it, but we don't all need to take lessons.

See, there's this thing called a "video camera". You should remember: you used to insist that no good pro would use one until you switched to a pro that did.

[quote]I am scheduled for another lesson this afternoon. I will not stop until I have it. The only difference between the accomplished and the mediocre is persistence. Nobody would pay money to listen to someone play guitar who had not been VERY persistent. [/QUOTE]

But they would pay to listen to a guitarist who never took lessons. There are lots of very good musicians who never had 'em.

[QUOTE=Mward2002]Exaggeration slow motions that are right, absolutely. If he did that weird lower body move in conjunction with moving his upper body at the same time I'd be ok with that. However in the video he took down (QUIT DOING THAT DAMN IT!) he does the leg thing and then moves the shoulders. It's just going to ingrain a worse habit, not to mention he's trying to do a motion you just can't do in full speed without some sort of injury occurring.[/QUOTE]

I take them down when they are no longer applicable. This is a work-in-progress. I have progressed since that video shot 2 weeks ago. I will throw up a video showing my current swing soon.

Taking another lesson this afternoon.

Larry

[QUOTE=Larryrsf]I take them down when they are no longer applicable. This is a work-in-progress. I have progressed since that video shot 2 weeks ago. I will throw up a video showing my current swing soon.

Taking another lesson this afternoon.[/QUOTE]

You take them down because they'd show just how many times you've posted nonsense as the SECRET...

[QUOTE=noshuz]Don't forget about ABILITY Larry. Some people just don't have it, don't get it and will never live up to their own expectations......:cool:[/QUOTE]

Sounds like rationalization. Not necessary in this case because the golf swing is just not that difficult. Rare "ability" is not required. ANYONE can get it if he persists and anyone can get it faster if he takes lessons and works through the drills, etc.

The golf swing is not "rocket science" nor is it nuclear physics. Mastering those subjects requires relatively rare "ability" and many find themselves incapable of mastering something that difficult--no matter how long or hard they work.

My PGA pro has been taking guitar lessons 4 years. He says learning to play guitar well is many times more difficult than mastering a scratch level golf swing. He said he has devoted dozens of times more effort to the guitar--and admits he is still mediocre! Not even close to recital quality yet.

So lets keep things in perspective. If you're heathy and you REALLY wanted to play golf well, you could do it in a few months.

Larry

[quote=Larryrsf]Sounds like rationalization. Not necessary in this case because the golf swing is just not that difficult. Rare "ability" is not required. ANYONE can get it if he persists and anyone can get it faster if he takes lessons and works through the drills, etc.

The golf swing is not "rocket science" nor is it nuclear physics. That requires relatively rare "ability" and many find themselves incapable of mastering something that difficult--no matter how long or hard they work.

My PGA pro has been taking guitar lessons 4 years. He says learning to play well is many times more difficult than mastering a scratch level golf swing. He said he has devoted dozens of times more effort to the guitar--and admits he is still mediocre! Not even close to recital quality yet.

So lets keep things in perspective. If you REALLY wanted to play well, you could.

Larry[/quote]

Well, I play guitar pretty well. I'm an advanced windsurfer and I think I'm a bit better than you at golf once you strip away all the sandbagging but I still think golf is the hardest thing I've done of the three. One day I think I've figured it all out only to find the next time out humiliating.....:mad:

[QUOTE=Larryrsf]Sounds like rationalization.[/QUOTE]

And I can think of no one who know more about that than you, Larry!

[QUOTE=Larryrsf]Sounds like rationalization. Not necessary in this case because the golf swing is just not that difficult. Rare "ability" is not required. ANYONE can get it if he persists and anyone can get it faster if he takes lessons and works through the drills, etc.

The golf swing is not "rocket science" nor is it nuclear physics. Mastering those subjects requires relatively rare "ability" and many find themselves incapable of mastering something that difficult--no matter how long or hard they work.

My PGA pro has been taking guitar lessons 4 years. He says learning to play guitar well is many times more difficult than mastering a scratch level golf swing. He said he has devoted dozens of times more effort to the guitar--and admits he is still mediocre! Not even close to recital quality yet.

So lets keep things in perspective. If you're heathy and you REALLY wanted to play golf well, you could do it in a few months.

Larry[/QUOTE]

A beginner needs golf lessons to understand proper grip, posture, swing plane and stance. Once you are an accomplished golfer and can get around the course shooting 90 or better you are faced with a decision. The decision is whether or not you want to spend the rest of your golfing life taking lessons. If you decide to take lessons, you need to keep on taking them because we all eventually gravitate back to our personal swing faults.

I usually shoot somewhere between 73 and 78 on a par 72 course. I have swing flaws...my biggest one being that I lay off the club and can't feel myself doing it. I have taken lessons for this. I go out on the range with the pro and he shows me what I'm doing wrong and then I practice it for awhile. Then, I go out onto the course and start hitting it terrible with the new swing so I go back to the old one. I'm pretty sure I could permanently remove this swing flaw if I were to take a lesson once a week for several months or maybe even several years.

However, I don't feel that I need to get rid of it. It's a flaw but I still hit it great when I'm playing well and not so great if my timing is off. I've played with guys that take lessons all the time and I swear they would be better if they didn't. A good friend of mine is a 2 handicap. We've been playing together for over 20 years. He took a few lessons when he was 10 years old and since then has taken one lesson. He has the most natural swing I've ever seen and I've watched him shoot 65. He once tried to take a lesson several years ago and the pro wanted to change his swing. This screwed him up for a good 3 months and it took him a long time to get his old swing back.

Larry, you are wrong about this. Good golf is about good course management, chipping and putting. There are tons of college amateurs with perfect swings that have absolutely no chance of ever making the PGA Tour.

The guitar analogy doesn't work. You practice on the guitar because you need to memorize how to play a variety of songs. You can't just look at a sheet of music and start playing the song...no matter how good of a guitar player you are.

[QUOTE=noshuz]Well, I play guitar pretty well. I'm an advanced windsurfer and I think I'm a bit better than you at golf once you strip away all the sandbagging but I still think golf is the hardest thing I've done of the three. One day I think I've figured it all out only to find the next time out humiliating.....:mad:[/QUOTE]

Alot of it depends on when you started. I've never taken guitar lessons, but I've always had a good ear and I started playing at 14. I'm pretty much "scratch" on guitar. Better than most amateurs, not as good as many of the pros. (but better than some) Golf on the other hand, I started when I was 33, and I suck big time. I gotta wonder if I started golf as a kid and just started guitar 4 years ago, would the golfswing be easy and guitar be hard?
What age did you take up golf, Nosh?

[QUOTE=Larryrsf] I will [B]throw up [/B]a video showing my current swing soon.

Larry[/QUOTE]

Sounds as though we'll all be throwing up.

[quote=Home-slicer]Alot of it depends on when you started. I've never taken guitar lessons, but I've always had a good ear and I started playing at 14. I'm pretty much "scratch" on guitar. Better than most amateurs, not as good as many of the pros. (but better than some) Golf on the other hand, I started when I was 33, and I suck big time. I gotta wonder if I started golf as a kid and just started guitar 4 years ago, would the golfswing be easy and guitar be hard?
What age did you take up golf, Nosh?[/quote]

My dad use to take me out when I was around 11 or 12 and then I played some in my early 20's but that was more just something to do while we drank beer. I didn't start "Golfing" until about 6 years ago. That's when I felt like I wanted to learn the game and get better. I started playing guitar around 14 and play pretty much by ear and very little theory. Windsurfing is what I really put my heart and soul into for 20+ years and got good. Lots and lots of practice and instructional videos and more practice.....:cool:

I started cooking pasta and veals when I was around 11, did some casseroles when I was a teenager but didn't really get involved with sauces and reductions until my late 20-s. So I'll never really be in the same league as the top pros. But I could be drunk and blindfolded and outcook some of these pretender "chefs" that get so much attention on cable.

I often wonder what my life would be like if I started sauces when I was, say, 9 or 10. The really top guys get to do just about any woman that walks into their restaraunt, if they want.

[QUOTE=noshuz]My dad use to take me out when I was around 11 or 12 and then I played some in my early 20's but that was more just something to do while we drank beer. I didn't start "Golfing" until about 6 years ago. That's when I felt like I wanted to learn the game and get better. I started playing guitar around 14 and play pretty much by ear and very little theory. Windsurfing is what I really put my heart and soul into for 20+ years and got good. Lots and lots of practice and instructional videos and more practice.....:cool:[/QUOTE]

And this sub-thread about who is good at what just goes to show how different people are.

I took up windsurfing just after I graduated from high school. By the end of that summer, I was an instructor. I wasn't yet an expert, but that was mostly because the days on Lake Ontario when you could work on advanced techniques where few and far between, but I could see the day coming when I would be, and it was already getting boring on any but the windiest days with the biggest waves you could get on the beaches near Toronto (which are actually pretty big if you get an SE wind).

Different folks...

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]I started cooking pasta and veals when I was around 11, did some casseroles when I was a teenager but didn't really get involved with sauces and reductions until my late 20-s. So I'll never really be in the same league as the top pros. But I could be drunk and blindfolded and outcook some of these pretender "chefs" that get so much attention on cable.

I often wonder what my life would be like if I started sauces when I was, say, 9 or 10. The really top guys get to do just about any woman that walks into their restaraunt, if they want.[/QUOTE]

This is the real reason women love you. Nothing impresses women more than being a gourmet cook.

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]I started cooking pasta and veals when I was around 11, did some casseroles when I was a teenager but didn't really get involved with sauces and reductions until my late 20-s. So I'll never really be in the same league as the top pros. But I could be drunk and blindfolded and outcook some of these pretender "chefs" that get so much attention on cable.

I often wonder what my life would be like if I started sauces when I was, say, 9 or 10. The really top guys get to do just about any woman that walks into their restaraunt, if they want.[/QUOTE]

Veal at 11? That's like a Japanese kid starting calculus as late as 9. You were a late bloomer I suppose.

[QUOTE=oldplayer]This is the real reason women love you. Nothing impresses women more than being a gourmet cook.[/QUOTE]

When you're basically an ugly guy, you need to have everything else going for you to have a chance. I won't deny cooking for someone has a power and effectiveness as an aphrodisiac that's rarely recognized. I keep a fresh tiramisu in reserve in the fridge for those times when it might make a difference.

[QUOTE=Home-slicer]Veal at 11? That's like a Japanese kid starting calculus as late as 9. You were a late bloomer I suppose.[/QUOTE]

Guineas get it going a little later than the asians. For us, we need the hormones to kick in. The asians don't really ever seem to go through the hormone thing.

[quote=alangbaker]And this sub-thread about who is good at what just goes to show how different people are.

I took up windsurfing just after I graduated from high school. By the end of that summer, I was an instructor. I wasn't yet an expert, but that was mostly because the days on Lake Ontario when you could work on advanced techniques where few and far between, but I could see the day coming when I would be, and it was already getting boring on any but the windiest days with the biggest waves you could get on the beaches near Toronto (which are actually pretty big if you get an SE wind).

Different folks...[/quote]
Sounds like you took to it naturally too Alan. I've been away from it for the 6-7 years I've been golfing and man have things changed! Have you heard of Rio Vista? (the Delta)
[ATTACH]2395[/ATTACH]

[QUOTE=noshuz]Sounds like you took to it naturally too Alan. I've been away from it for the 6-7 years I've been golfing and man have things changed! Have you heard of Rio Vista? (the Delta)
[ATTACH]2395[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]

I've been away from it a lot longer.

With no way to pursue it anywhere but Toronto for the foreseeable future and my time about to be occupied with university, I simply left it behind.

I've hardly been on a sailboard in the last twenty years...

But I sometimes wish I'd had the chance to do it where I could really learn to sail in big waves. Oh well.

[QUOTE=alangbaker]And this sub-thread about who is good at what just goes to show how different people are.

I took up windsurfing just after I graduated from high school. By the end of that summer, I was an instructor. I wasn't yet an expert, but that was mostly because the days on Lake Ontario when you could work on advanced techniques where few and far between, but I could see the day coming when I would be, and it was already getting boring on any but the windiest days with the biggest waves you could get on the beaches near Toronto (which are actually pretty big if you get an SE wind).

Different folks...[/QUOTE]


Alan, maybe you can help settle a bet. A friend of mine says you can do 360-s jumping off the larger turds floating on Lake Ontario, I say not much more than a 180.

Who's correct?

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]Guineas get it going a little later than the asians. For us, we need the hormones to kick in. The asians don't really ever seem to go through the hormone thing.[/QUOTE]

It's funny how that works. I sometimes wonder what I could have accomplished in life if I hadn't invested so much time thinking about and chasing pu$$y. I probably could have cured a disease or two.

[QUOTE=Home-slicer]It's funny how that works. I sometimes wonder what I could have accomplished in life if I hadn't invested so much time thinking about and chasing pu$$y. I probably could have cured a disease or two.[/QUOTE]

But then, what would have been the point? People are going to die eventually, no matter what.

We shouldn't be so hard on ourselves.

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]Alan, maybe you can help settle a bet. A friend of mine says you can do 360-s jumping off the larger turds floating on Lake Ontario, I say not much more than a 180.

Who's correct?[/QUOTE]

Sorry, L'zo,

I've got no experience in that area.

If you want to know about turds, you'd better talk to Larry.

;)

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]Sounds as though we'll all be throwing up.[/QUOTE]


[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WJPvBabrJE[/url]

Once we have ingrained a good grip, setup, and takeaway turn, all of which can be learned from a book and practiced in slow motion or in a mirror, the hard part of the golf swing is making a series of movements that are NOT natural, since only 1% can do them--according to TPI.

A correct golf swing consists of the full turn, a "shift" of our weight to our front leg while the hips are turning toward the target, and the finish. Most amateurs turn and swing with little or no "shift"-- and thus they bring the clubhead to the ball "out and around" their interfering back hip-- slice or pull-hook. Instead of learning to do it right (lessons) they teach themselves to flip the clubhead closed. Many have been doing that so long that they don't even know they do it. But go to any range and watch them setup with the clubhead closed. Their subconscious mind knows.

The best (only?) way to teach yourselft this is slow motion practice. Then hit balls only a few yards, exaggerating the three steps. When you feel yourself rush through the "shift" step, go back to slower or hitting balls a shorter distance. Eventually your subconscious mind will learn to always do it. Patience and persistence.

My pro thinks the best way to rehearse the correct body moves is with arms crossed. Take your stance and back against a smooth wall. Then make your pivot turn back and "squat" a little to ensure your right (if right-handed) cheek stays in contact with the wall. Then slide to your left a few inches keeping your cheek against the wall. Slide until your left leg "post" is vertical, then pivot around your left hip while keeping your right butt cheep against the wall--and then stand upright. We slide against the wall to hold our spine angle posture and avoid "standing up" one of the most common swing faults. I suspect many really good players rehearse it like that quite often, my pro does. He says this is the best possible practice anyone can do for their golf swing. There are no swing aides that even come close. Ask your pro.

Larry

I tried the exaggerated slow motion swing, but only hit the ball about 20 yards, not sure how you guys do it. Although I did not lose any in the woods, so maybe there is value there.

Tried condoms on my club, but found impact tape was a much easier and less messy way to see where I was hitting the ball. I must have missed something in the threads above. I guess you guys use new condoms instead of used? Maybe I will try again.

The insurance conversation was interesting, but after looking at the premiums discussed, I think I will let my clubs wither and die if they get sick.

"I tried the exaggerated slow motion swing,..."

Tried? If you want to ingrain a totally different swing movement, you need to do that dozens, even hundreds of times! You must do that enough times to convincingly show yourself that it works and that you can perform a correct golf swing. You need to show yourself that you can bring the clubhead from the inside after you post on your front leg and then swing. The golf downswing occurs at such high speed that only our subconscious can control it-- so training that in slow and stopped motion is how we change it.

Larry

[QUOTE=Home-slicer]Alot of it depends on when you started. I've never taken guitar lessons, but I've always had a good ear and I started playing at 14. I'm pretty much "scratch" on guitar. Better than most amateurs, not as good as many of the pros. (but better than some) Golf on the other hand, I started when I was 33, and I suck big time. I gotta wonder if I started golf as a kid and just started guitar 4 years ago, would the golfswing be easy and guitar be hard?
What age did you take up golf, Nosh?[/QUOTE]
I started playing guitar 4 months ago...(except for a brief stint with a POS in middle school). I started golf in college. I would say the learning curves are similar, although its much easier to find time to strum a guitar than get to the course for practice/play (at least right now).

I have a lot more on the subject for later, but think about this: Have you ever seen a basketball player that wasn't a good free throw shooter by the time he left high school, later improve by any considerable amount. Even if a pro spends 1/2 hour a day practicing he is unlikely to get much better, but a 10 year old can become a 90% free throw maker in no time with the same practice regimine.

[QUOTE=Larryrsf]"I tried the exaggerated slow motion swing,..."

Tried? If you want to ingrain a totally different swing movement, you need to do that dozens, even hundreds of times! You must do that enough times to convincingly show yourself that it works and that you can perform a correct golf swing. You need to show yourself that you can bring the clubhead from the inside after you post on your front leg and then swing. The golf downswing occurs at such high speed that only our subconscious can control it-- so training that in slow and stopped motion is how we change it.

Larry[/QUOTE]

Larry, you really need to lighten up. I'm afraid you are about to blow a gasket.

Tell us something really interesting . . . . . . like . . . . . . you seen any good hooters lately?

[QUOTE=SoonerBS]Larry, you really need to lighten up. I'm afraid you are about to blow a gasket.

Tell us something really interesting . . . . . . like . . . . . . you seen any good hooters lately?[/QUOTE]
How do you feel about retirement aged women and breast implants?

[QUOTE=The Purist]How do you feel about retirement aged women and breast implants?[/QUOTE]

Today's surgeons can work wonders at tightening everything up and making it firm again. As long as their false teeth didn't pop out in the middle of doing the wild thing, I'd probably consider them doable . . . . . .

[QUOTE=Larryrsf][url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WJPvBabrJE[/url]

Once we have ingrained a good grip, setup, and takeaway turn, all of which can be learned from a book and practiced in slow motion or in a mirror, the hard part of the golf swing is making a series of movements that are NOT natural, since only 1% can do them--according to TPI.

A correct golf swing consists of the full turn, a "shift" of our weight to our front leg while the hips are turning toward the target, and the finish. Most amateurs turn and swing with little or no "shift"-- and thus they bring the clubhead to the ball "out and around" their interfering back hip-- slice or pull-hook. Instead of learning to do it right (lessons) they teach themselves to flip the clubhead closed. Many have been doing that so long that they don't even know they do it. But go to any range and watch them setup with the clubhead closed. Their subconscious mind knows.

The best (only?) way to teach yourselft this is slow motion practice. Then hit balls only a few yards, exaggerating the three steps. When you feel yourself rush through the "shift" step, go back to slower or hitting balls a shorter distance. Eventually your subconscious mind will learn to always do it. Patience and persistence.

My pro thinks the best way to rehearse the correct body moves is with arms crossed. Take your stance and back against a smooth wall. Then make your pivot turn back and "squat" a little to ensure your right (if right-handed) cheek stays in contact with the wall. Then slide to your left a few inches keeping your cheek against the wall. Slide until your left leg "post" is vertical, then pivot around your left hip while keeping your right butt cheep against the wall--and then stand upright. We slide against the wall to hold our spine angle posture and avoid "standing up" one of the most common swing faults. I suspect many really good players rehearse it like that quite often, my pro does. He says this is the best possible practice anyone can do for their golf swing. There are no swing aides that even come close. Ask your pro.

Larry[/QUOTE]


Larry, here's something I have noticed as it relates to your swing videos, and then how you describe the "post" move when you're discussing it in threads here...

What you describe as the "post" move is more or less correct - but that's not what you're doing in the videos. I'd like to help you fix that right now.

I think you misunderstand the general purpose of the "post", and it's because of this that you fail to execute it properly. To elaborate - on the downswing, the front leg becomes a brace - the front hip must be inhibited and braced over our front foot so that we can pivot around it and release the club down the line naturally. The proper swing plane is indeed a very natural motion, created by centrifugal force, momentum, gravity, and inertia. If you learn to brace into your "post" without sliding your hips, then you'll be setting yourself up to encourage a more natural release of the club - and you'll stay on plane and find the middle of the clubface more often.

If you don't brace your "post" move, your hips will slide too far forwards, and you'll get "stuck" the same way Tiger Woods does when he's hitting those dreaded blocks all day. Now you know why blocks happen. Hips get out in front and you block it.

You need to learn to hit against a firm right (for a lefty like you) side. Plant that right foot hard into the dirt during your follow through. You want to feel as if your right foot is going to sink into the ground during your "post" move, like you're trying to squish something under your right foot. Your front hip will have to stack over your front leg for you to get this sensation - and that's exactly how you want to "post".

Hope that helps.



FON

What seems lost in this is Hogan wasn't a post-up player. He swung his left knee outward on the downswing and rotated the hips. It looks as if his hips slide forward, but if you look at his swing and mark his right hip at the top, you might be amazed at how little lateral motion there is on the downswing. Hogan cleared his left knee early in the downswing but kept it bent. All this enabled him to stay behind the ball while getting forward enough for a downward strike.

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]What seems lost in this is Hogan wasn't a post-up player. He swung his left knee outward on the downswing and rotated the hips. It looks as if his hips slide forward, but if you look at his swing and mark his right hip at the top, you might be amazed at how little lateral motion there is on the downswing. Hogan cleared his left knee early in the downswing but kept it bent. All this enabled him to stay behind the ball while getting forward enough for a downward strike.[/QUOTE]


Exactly. There is very little slide, if any during a proper post move. It's a downward stomp with the front foot - that's why all the classical era players lifted their front heels and planted them to start the downswing. That was the way to execute the post move back in the day. The front knee doesn't have to straighten either, the front foot just has to drive into the ground. Bent knees will work just as well as a straight front knee, so long as the fulcrum of the pivot is not sliding out of position.



FON

[QUOTE=FreakOfNature]Exactly. There is very little slide, if any during a proper post move. It's a downward stomp with the front foot - that's why all the classical era players lifted their front heels and planted them to start the downswing. That was the way to execute the post move back in the day. The front knee doesn't have to straighten either, the front foot just has to drive into the ground. Bent knees will work just as well as a straight front knee, so long as the fulcrum of the pivot is not sliding out of position.



FON[/QUOTE]

In the old days there was quite a bit of fast forward movement in the left knee, culminating in the reverse C move so famous then... nowadays the standard finish position is much more vertical, having remained much more over the ball during impact and with less of that forward movement of the lower body...

Guys like Kite, who used to do the reverse C spine-crunching followthrough, now stand sedately vertical on finish... amazing how you adapt to keep from hurting yourself..

impact position back then featured the left knee bent and out ahead of the body, both knees flexed and rushing forward along with the club... photos look like a runner caught in stride...

now it looks like the left leg and left hip are against a brick wall and cannot move forward..

interesting change in the way it works... a good change... probably saves a lot of spines AND promotes consistent striking.

[QUOTE=FreakOfNature]Larry, here's something I have noticed as it relates to your swing videos, and then how you describe the "post" move when you're discussing it in threads here...

What you describe as the "post" move is more or less correct - but that's not what you're doing in the videos. I'd like to help you fix that right now.

I think you misunderstand the general purpose of the "post", and it's because of this that you fail to execute it properly. To elaborate - on the downswing, the front leg becomes a brace - the front hip must be inhibited and braced over our front foot so that we can pivot around it and release the club down the line naturally. The proper swing plane is indeed a very natural motion, created by centrifugal force, momentum, gravity, and inertia. If you learn to brace into your "post" without sliding your hips, then you'll be setting yourself up to encourage a more natural release of the club - and you'll stay on plane and find the middle of the clubface more often.

If you don't brace your "post" move, your hips will slide too far forwards, and you'll get "stuck" the same way Tiger Woods does when he's hitting those dreaded blocks all day. Now you know why blocks happen. Hips get out in front and you block it.

You need to learn to hit against a firm right (for a lefty like you) side. Plant that right foot hard into the dirt during your follow through. You want to feel as if your right foot is going to sink into the ground during your "post" move, like you're trying to squish something under your right foot. Your front hip will have to stack over your front leg for you to get this sensation - and that's exactly how you want to "post".

Hope that helps.

FON[/QUOTE]

Right on! I know that, my pro knows that, and that's what I am working to ingrain. I have advanced quite a distance so far, but I certainly know I need to get over on my right leg and stabilized better. My pro says I am rushing the "shift," which is something that can be done quite leisurely--and yet generate sufficient clubhead speed. Of course that doesn't compute until we do it a few dozen times and see that ball sail out their further than ever! Thanks!

I had an additional problem to overcome in that my right knee was damaged while playing football many years ago-- and I had 3 surgeries over the years. It is fairly stable now, but still clicks and hurts. So it was problemmatic to make myself stand on it and post. I am always working to build my quad muscles stronger-- because those both stabilize our knee as well as give me confidence that it will support me. (I could probably benefit by losing 40 pounds!) ha.

Larry

We can probably thank Rahm Emanuel for healthcare reform, more than we realise. I cant even imagine the personal debate, for him and his family, as I believe there Doctors. Long term is what we need to look at, and middle America plunking out 700 a month for a family of three as I do, is outrageous!

200!
Carry on.