Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 04:45 PM) That's great, doesn't really help the fact that police may have executed a black teen, which has become all too common. Maybe white people shouldn't feel defensive and instead listen to why they are so angry instead of telling them they can't be angry until some standard is met. Try to imagine if the tools that are supposed to keep society running were instead harassing and threatening and even killing your community. Look how pissed people get at bureaucracy in here, which is justified, now imagine the IRS killing your neighbors. Probably would be more vocal. That's twice you've accused me of that, and i'm not sure where you're getting it from. My whole point is channel your anger in the appropriate place and in the appropriate way.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 02:30 PM) I would say it's equally old considering it's almost 150 years since the Civil War and things like this are still happening in America...when I was teaching in Colombia, my students were constantly asking me why the U.S. government was treating all the people in New Orleans so poorly after Hurricane Katrina, and I didn't have a good response for them. I suggest reading ZEITOUN by Dave Eggers and asking you after you've finished if you still feel the same way about how the government and police have acted at different times in our country's history. It's not always something to be proud of...and trying to banish the media seems to be 100% CYA time. You're absolutely right these things shouldn't happen in 2014, but that's a far cry from claiming that America isn't for black people. I mean I forgot that all black people in this country are second class citizens. There are no politicians, business leaders, actors, actresses, professional sports athletes that are respected, idolized, cheered for, etc. in this country. None whatsoever. But hey, overreacting to these types of stories, making it a racial issue that white people have to feel defensive about is the best way to go about changing things. As is looting and rioting and behaving like uncivilized threats that cops use to justify their overreactions. Maybe instead of "Gah! White people hate black people!" (which isn't true), the story line here should be "Gah! Police have become militarized in this country and are out of control and we need to re-think that whole thing because people keep getting shot, punched, assaulted, etc. for no justifiable reason."

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 03:01 PM) HE CANNOT USE HIS SECOND SHOT. HE MUST USE HIS WORST BALL ON EVERY SHOT I understand that, but his "first" shot, good or bad, ends up with him scoring at a 70 something clip. He doesn't get a redo when he plays on tour, that's just his skill level. That's his baseline. You're assuming that he'll shoot worse, or at least on average be worse just because he has to take a second shot. I'm saying that's not necessarily true. More often than not that 2nd shot is going to be better than the first, regardless of whether the first shot is bad or good. He's able to see how the wind affects the shot, how the ground affects the shot, if he's turning over his wrist, if he has some kink in his swing, if he ends up short or long etc. etc. He has more info on that 2nd shot. You're ignoring this by just saying "well he has a 60% GIR rate normally, so in two shots that's cut to 30%." Really, his "worst case scenario" is most likely going to be his first "bad" shot. And again, he's able to scramble from that bad shot more often than not and still shoot a 70 something on average. Yes, there is the possibility that he'll hit a good shot first, and THEN a bad shot. And that's where I agree he'll probably shoot a few shots worse than he normally does. That and his putting, which is bound to drop off if he's forced to make a 10+ footer more than once. I just don't see that happening nearly as much as you are claiming because of a pro's ability to adjust immediately.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 02:15 PM) I don't think you understand...if he hits 11 of 18 greens with one ball, if he has to hit two balls, he's only going to hit 5.5 greens with both balls. So now he is scrambling on 12-13 holes instead of 7. He gets up and down about 61% of the time, which is pretty solid. But if he has to do it twice, he's only going to do it about 30% of the time. So now he's making bogeys on 7-9 of those 12-13 greens he missed. But you're ignoring the big chance that he would improve on the first shot with his second, which I think any pro would do the vast majority of the time.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 01:58 PM) How many fairways and greens do you think he is hitting? Well as-is with one shot he hits about 61% of greens in regulation, which is about 11 holes. So I think for 11 holes, played with two balls, you're still talking absolute worst score is even par because it'd be rare that he three putts any of them. He would then have 7 holes to scramble around. And I still think he's at or near the green most of the time, so you're talking a chip and a putt or two for most holes. 4-5-6 over might be reasonable for him. But I just don't see a 90 score guy improving 12-15 shots by getting a second shot at it.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 01:55 PM) You have to think about where most opportunities for improvement lie. Like you said, the 90 golfer isn't a hack. And the easiest clubs to hit in one's bag are? Wegdes. He's obviously not likely to be Justin Rose with his wedges, but he is going to hit it near the green most of the time with a wedge in his hand. On the other hand, what are the most difficult clubs to hit in the bag, or where does the pro have a huge advantage over the average golfer? Pros hit their long-irons like you and I can only dream of. They also drive the ball much further than most 90 golfers. Think about par 5's and par 3's. If the pro is hitting your shots outside of 100 yards, he's going to be hitting the approach into almost every par 3 out there. He's also going to be getting you on or near the green in 2 on most par 5's. You might even have him layup on short par 4's so he can hit your approach shot in for you . I don't have a great short game by any means, but the worst I am going to do on most greens is 3 putt, and I am going to have the same amount of putts on the vast majority of greens anyways. I wouldn't get up and down nearly as much as a pro, but the difference there is usually going to only be 1 shot. Whereas if we're going tee to 100 yards short of the green, I might hit it OB, I might hit it into that lateral hazard, I might shank a few. I might make a 9 on a hole because I hit not one, but two balls in the water. Ok, I read it wrong. I thought you meant the pro literally gets you to about the 100 yard marker and then it's your turn. But that's kind of a silly hypothetical because the pro would basically get you on the green 60-70% of the time in regulation, so of course you would take that.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 01:47 PM) But in this hypothetical the player can't use the shot he re-hit. He HAS to play the worst of his two shots...So say he misses his first 8 foot putt. Will he likely have a better chance to make the next one because he's going to get a read from the first? Yes. But guess what, it doesn't matter, because he can't use that putt! He has to take the one he's already missed. The opposite applies for the 90 golfer...he CAN use the better shot, so he can use the information gained from the first shot to adjust on the second shot. As for the putting statistics, the 55% for a 7 footer may not be right on, because I don't have them in front of me at the moment, but for 8 foot putts, the average is right at 50%. Anything less than 3 feet, they are almost automatic. They do miss 4 and 5 footers though. I guess I don't see that as a huge deal. He's hitting fairways and hitting greens and giving himself great scoring chances most of the round. Not making the birdie or par putts from long range means at worst he's dropping one shot. But he's still going to make a fair number of those putts twice simply based on the distance and percentage from 5-6 feet and in.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 01:05 PM) Obviously it depends on the particular amateur, but on average, the better choice would be to allow the pro to get you to within 100 yards and then take over from there. I guess I was assuming the 90 scorer again. That's not someone who is hacking their way around the course. They're playing bogey golf, which means get it on in 3-4 and putt it a couple of times. I think the pro's ability to chip, pitch, hit sand shots, lag putt and putt gives a far greater advantage than driving the ball farther and straighter. The difficulty with this hypothetical is the 100 yard line. That's not really THAT much of an advantage unless you're talking straight off the drive. Let's say we have a par 4 of 450 yards. A pro is getting you within 100 yards in two shots. Most 90 scoring amateurs can do that too.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 01:04 PM) Ok...let's think it through... Let's take a look at some of Els' stats...Ernie is 181st on the PGA Tour in driving accuracy. He hits 53.52% of his drives in the fairway. So the odds of him hitting 2 balls in the fairway is slightly more than 1 in 4 (26.76 %). So on 3 out of every 4 holes basically, he's starting from the rough. Granted, he averages 290.9 yards a drive, but he's starting from the rough. Ernie hits 60.85 % of his greens in regulation. I'm fairly certain this % decreases when he is in the rough versus the fairway, but not assuming where his ball is, he is only going to hit the green in regulation on 6 out of every 10 shots. So the odds of him hitting the green with both balls are not great...he will do it about 30% of the time. When Ernie does miss the green, he is fairly decent...his average proximity he gets the ball to the hole from around the green is 6 feet 11 inches. If he was to hit it in the sand, his sand save % is just under 50. So the odds of doing that on two shots is about 25%. I don't have the exact percentage in front of me, but the average pro makes about 50% of his 8 footers. For 7 footers, it is undoubtedly higher, maybe 55%. To make two in a row, that number might be more like 27.5%. So you start to see how difficult it is for a pro to make a birdie....it is incredibly difficult...and it becomes fairly easy for him to make bogeys. You can't look at the stats that way. Those are stats over rounds of golf, not one shot right after the other. You're giving a tour player the option to re-hit a "bad" shot. I'd say 85-90% of the time he's going to hit it right the 2nd time. Els getting one shot is, for the most part, going to be his "worst" because if given a second chance he will adjust properly. Not all the time, which is why he may shoot slightly worse if he's always forced to take his worst shot, but it's not nearly as significant as an amateur. Even with those figures, he's still average par or better. Whereas you're asking an amateur to take two shots and massively improve from one to the next. That's something he/she doesn't have the skill for. I think your putting numbers are wrong. The % of makes are WAY more for a pro than the amateur. Pros are nearly automatic from 5' in, and their lag putting is significantly better.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 12:34 PM) Another one for you...would the average amateur benefit more from having an average touring pro hit all his shots up to 100 yards short of the hole, or all his shots with less than 100 yards to the hole? I'll go with 100 yards and in. If you can hack it up to a green in 2 or 3, the pro is going to be able to chip/pitch and one putt the majority of the time. Way more accurate than an amateur.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 12:11 PM) Putting is huge in this hypothetical format, because the pro has to make BOTH putts, not just one. But pros actually gain more shots getting to the greens than they do on the greens (in real golf in relation to amateurs) I still don't think it matters. You're talking worst case he misses a few tough birdies and has to settle for par. The 90 score player still has difficulty getting the ball anywhere near the hole to make birdies and pars, even with two shots. And that second point is also big. Els has a 290 driving average. An average golfer is probably closer to 225-230. And he's a comfortable 6-7 iron from 200+ away. Huge advantage on long par 4's and par 5's.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 10:38 AM) Ok, so two golfers...on an average, 6,500 yard course....one golfer shoots about 90 on average, the other golfer is Ernie Els. Each golfer gets to hit two balls on every shot, including putts. The 90 golfer gets to play his best ball every time. Ernie Els has to hit his worst ball every time. Who shoots the better score? Ernie Els and I don't think it's that close. A 90 golfer, roughly bogey golf, is still inconsistent. You can give him two shots and he's likely to still mess up. At best you're looking at something like a 10 stroke improvement. At best. Els is going to shoot around par with only one shot. I figure that's the worst case scenario because a 2nd shot he'll adjust and get it "right." Even if he does do worse a second time, maybe he's 3-4 shots worse than normal. So again, something in the 72-75 range.

This narrative is already getting old: http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/america-i...ople-1620169913

More people shot: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-a...c9d8c688e7.html

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 12, 2014 -> 04:28 PM) Jesus. Whelp, have fun paying for that lawsuit citizens of California.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 12, 2014 -> 02:11 PM) If police brutality (which is more than murder cases) were removed, community trust in police would probably help solve the crime rates. But, again, if police brutality is wrong, than people can object to it. I think we all agree police brutality is wrong... but sorry, St. Louis, you can't complain about police brutality and murdering of people until these people who are black in Detroit and Chicago solve their violence problem. Why? Because, they too are black, and so you are also black, and must answer for the violence of the predominantly black neighborhoods. You can't have the dessert of protesting police brutality until you eat your vegetables of solving crime. Want help? Just ask the police? Oh they are harassing you? Perhaps you should solve your communities crime! I've never said they can't complain. They have every right to be upset. I'll all for them being upset. All i'm asking is why don't they respond similarly to other dead kids who die from unnecessary violence. It just seems like there's more of an uproar when there's a cop/non-black person involved. Also, I read an AP story that the gun went off inside the police car. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/guide-devel...police-shooting Obviously not much is known yet about what actually happened, but if that's true, that probably supports the cops story that there was a fight first and the kid then fled. Still gotta wonder if shooting was an appropriate response though.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 12, 2014 -> 12:35 PM) You are putting impossible standards on people that you don't put on yourself. For one, I don't live in those areas. I've never been shot at. I've never lost a family member or friend to that kind of violence. I'm in a completely different world from them. So in a sense, you're right, I shouldn't judge them. But it's also not really "my" problem to solve. I didn't say that everyone was apathetic, but if entire neighborhoods rioted because of the ongoing violence and non-response from the City/State, maybe something more would get done. Yes, people meet and marches are held and all that, but never to this level. Why does it take a cop killing a kid in a very rare occurrence to cause that kind of reaction when seeing dead kids near playgrounds on a weekly basis doesn't? I acknowledged the different situation, but again the end result is the same - someone dies for no good reason. So IMO, regardless of the violence in the neighborhood, there should be an equal "we won't stand for this s***" response. Not from a few, but from the majority in the neighborhood.

Another big consideration was that being 2 he's free right now. In the future we'd have to get a ticket for him at each park (like $90 per park, per day), pay the upcharge in the room for him, and at sit-down places buy a meal for him (they supposedly require you to pay for any kid 3-9, although i'm not sure how they could possibly enforce that).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 12, 2014 -> 12:29 PM) Can I ask why? We talked about it at that age, and we decided that for the money you spend, it isn't worth it, as the kid isn't going to remember it anyway. We'll be an hour and a half away, so we figured why not drop by for a couple of days. Mickey Mouse Clubhouse is his favorite thing in the world, and he really enjoys a lot of the Disney movies. It's totally for us, more than him, but we know that going in.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Aug 12, 2014 -> 11:55 AM) Yes there is, the race was under yellow caution flag because of Wards wreck. Regardless, I agree about Wards responsibility to stay away from the race. IMO, there would have to be proof that Stewart intended to scare him or shoot dirt at him, which seems to be damn near impossible without Stewart admitting it. Ah ok, I didn't know about the yellow flag.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Aug 12, 2014 -> 12:01 PM) I've been to Disney 25+ times but can't help you much with a toddler. All my recent trips have been doing all 4 parks in 1 day and you're definitely not going to go for that experience. Magic Kingdom is great. Fantasy Land is all new. Lines used to be brutal there but with some of the newer rides Disney seems to have worried about higher capacity levels a lot more so it should be a lot better now. Hit up the classics: Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Thunder Mountain, Small World, Peter Pan. He'd also love Buzz Lightyear and the new Mine train looks cool. Figure out the fast pass system before you go. It's confused a lot of people I don't like Animal Kingdom at all. Just not a lot there imo. Personally I'd go to the Universal Parks over any of the Disney Parks these days. Yeah we've heard Animal Kingdom is basically a half-day park, but one of the character dining meals is there so we're sorta stuck. I used to go like every 2 years as a kid, but it's been about 15 years now since I was there last. So it should be a trip. People are telling me that we're nuts, but I think he'll get a kick out of some of the rides and definitely meeting Mickey, Donald, Goofy, etc. Although there is a strong 30-40% chance he's going to freak the f*** out when he sees them.

Where did this happen? New York? In Illinois, that civil case is VERY defensible. The jury would be asked to assess fault between Stewart and Ward. If Ward was determined to be 51% or more at fault, he gets nothing. If it's 50% or below, the judgment gets reduced accordingly. I don't see how a jury could find him 50% or less at fault. He got out of his car and walked straight into the middle of a car race. The car before Stewart's nearly hit him. Without his own negligence, Stewart doesn't have the opportunity to be "negligent." And that's on top of the question of whether Stewart WAS negligent to begin with. It would depend on when he first saw Ward outside of his vehicle. There's certainly no duty to "reduce speed to avoid an accident" while in the middle of a race like that. edit: looks like New York is comparative negligence state, so take the percent of Ward's fault and reduce the judgment. It could be 1% and he's still get it. Although you would still have to prove Stewart did something wrong here.

My wife and I are taking our 2 year old to Disney next month. Anyone do that trip with a toddler before? Any advise/tips/tricks? It's only for a few days and we're only doing 2 parks (Magic Kingdom over two days and Animal Kingdom for one). Staying in a Disney resort before heading over to St. Pete for a week. It's either going to be awesome watching him freak out with excitement, or it's going to be an absolute nightmare for 3 days.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 12, 2014 -> 11:27 AM) This is such a stupid, stupid post. I don't see why. The black community in Chicago is pretty apathetic these days about the violence going on (as is every other group). I'm not saying EVERYONE, but as a whole there seems to be a general shrug of the shoulder when it happens here. I understand it's different when a cop shoots an innocent kid (allegedly). But a dead kid is a dead kid. It shouldn't happen, no matter who the shooter is. And they should be getting just as pissed off at the kids taking over their streets as they are at the cops.