Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Take it back steep and bring it down from the inside
35 views
Skip to first unread message
la...@pivotforpower.com
Dec 29, 2011, 1:46:00 PM12/29/11
to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ2zf4X6PIc&feature=related
This is what I am working to accomplish-- without the raised front
heel or flying elbow.
Taking it back outside to get it vertical with fully turned shoulders
is solid fundamentally. Then AS he shifts to his front leg and tilts
his torso away from the target, he rolls it behind him, flattens his
left wrist, and brings his hands down toward his right leg-- his right
elbow comes down and is engaged by his hips to supply the power
throught impact. The fundamentals are perfect-- and explain how old
dudes like me can still hit it long and straight into their 80s!
There is no FAST TWITCH muscle usage, no arm action, no hand action,
just the simple cascade of moves that Hogan described.
Moe Norman did about the same thing and so did Hogan. Their swings
look slightly different, but like Trevino and other champions, they
looked identical through impact, their clubhead approaching the ball
from the inside.
Larry
This is what I am working to accomplish-- without the raised front
heel or flying elbow.
Taking it back outside to get it vertical with fully turned shoulders
is solid fundamentally. Then AS he shifts to his front leg and tilts
his torso away from the target, he rolls it behind him, flattens his
left wrist, and brings his hands down toward his right leg-- his right
elbow comes down and is engaged by his hips to supply the power
throught impact. The fundamentals are perfect-- and explain how old
dudes like me can still hit it long and straight into their 80s!
There is no FAST TWITCH muscle usage, no arm action, no hand action,
just the simple cascade of moves that Hogan described.
Moe Norman did about the same thing and so did Hogan. Their swings
look slightly different, but like Trevino and other champions, they
looked identical through impact, their clubhead approaching the ball
from the inside.
Larry
Alan Baker
Dec 29, 2011, 5:24:28 PM12/29/11
to
In article
<cdf1f403-9047-47ab...@f15g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
No, Larry. Neither Moe Norman nor Ben Hogan did anything remotely like
what you are describing and Ben Hogan (up until recently, your absolute
biblical authority on how to swing the club correctly) advocates the
active use of the hands.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
<cdf1f403-9047-47ab...@f15g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
what you are describing and Ben Hogan (up until recently, your absolute
biblical authority on how to swing the club correctly) advocates the
active use of the hands.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
David Laville
Dec 29, 2011, 8:08:06 PM12/29/11
to
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 10:46:00 -0800 (PST), la...@pivotforpower.com
wrote:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ2zf4X6PIc&feature=related
>
>This is what I am working to accomplish-- without the raised front
>heel or flying elbow.
You would.
>Taking it back outside to get it vertical with fully turned shoulders
>is solid fundamentally.
Since when? Why would you want to take it back outside when taking it
back on plane is just as easy and programs the swing components to
bring it back down on plane?
>Then AS he shifts to his front leg and tilts
>his torso away from the target, he rolls it behind him, flattens his
>left wrist,
How can he "flatten" his left wrist when it's already flat throughout
his backswing and downswing?
> and brings his hands down toward his right leg
I would suggest try watching the video with you eyes open because he
swings his hands down on an angle towards the ball not his right leg.
>-- his right
>elbow comes down and is engaged by his hips to supply the power
>throught impact.
His right elbow passes in front of his right pant pocket. How does
his hips engage it?
>The fundamentals are perfect--
Which proves how clueless you still are about the golf swing.
>and explain how old
>dudes like me can still hit it long and straight into their 80s!
If you can hit it so long and straight why are you working to emulate
what he does?
>There is no FAST TWITCH muscle usage, no arm action, no hand action,
>just the simple cascade of moves that Hogan described.
No hand action? You just told us above he flattens his left wrist.
Does that not involve his left hand?
>Moe Norman did about the same thing and so did Hogan.
Wrong.
>Their swings
>look slightly different, but like Trevino and other champions, they
>looked identical through impact, their clubhead approaching the ball
>from the inside.
And so does the millions of other golfers who swing on plane. So your
point was?
David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
wrote:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ2zf4X6PIc&feature=related
>
>This is what I am working to accomplish-- without the raised front
>heel or flying elbow.
>Taking it back outside to get it vertical with fully turned shoulders
>is solid fundamentally.
back on plane is just as easy and programs the swing components to
bring it back down on plane?
>Then AS he shifts to his front leg and tilts
>his torso away from the target, he rolls it behind him, flattens his
>left wrist,
his backswing and downswing?
> and brings his hands down toward his right leg
swings his hands down on an angle towards the ball not his right leg.
>-- his right
>elbow comes down and is engaged by his hips to supply the power
>throught impact.
his hips engage it?
>The fundamentals are perfect--
Which proves how clueless you still are about the golf swing.
>and explain how old
>dudes like me can still hit it long and straight into their 80s!
what he does?
>There is no FAST TWITCH muscle usage, no arm action, no hand action,
>just the simple cascade of moves that Hogan described.
Does that not involve his left hand?
>Moe Norman did about the same thing and so did Hogan.
>Their swings
>look slightly different, but like Trevino and other champions, they
>looked identical through impact, their clubhead approaching the ball
>from the inside.
point was?
David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
Carbon
Dec 29, 2011, 8:59:56 PM12/29/11
to
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 19:08:06 -0600, David Laville wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 10:46:00 -0800 (PST), la...@pivotforpower.com
> wrote:
>
>> Moe Norman did about the same thing and so did Hogan.
>
> Wrong.
Troll alert.
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 10:46:00 -0800 (PST), la...@pivotforpower.com
> wrote:
>
>> Moe Norman did about the same thing and so did Hogan.
>
> Wrong.
la...@pivotforpower.com
Jan 1, 2012, 5:39:57 PM1/1/12
to
On Dec 29 2011, 5:08 pm, David Laville <dlavi...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >Their swings look slightly different, but like Trevino and other champions, they
> >looked identical through impact, their clubhead approaching the ball
> >from the inside.
>
> And so does the millions of other golfers who swing on plane. So your
> point was?
>
> David Laville, G.S.E.M.
> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
My "point" is that those who are serious about developing a golf swing
> >Their swings look slightly different, but like Trevino and other champions, they
> >looked identical through impact, their clubhead approaching the ball
> >from the inside.
>
> And so does the millions of other golfers who swing on plane. So your
> point was?
>
> David Laville, G.S.E.M.
> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
that enables them to consistently hit fairways and greens need only to
take lessons and then do the drills to ingrain the positions and the
movements of a conventional golf swing. That really is the fastest
method, just as it is when learning to play a musical instrument or
learn a foreign language or to perform complex dance steps. We must
first learn it from someone who is an expert, then "walk through" the
moves to memorize and ingrain them. In golf, the pioneers including
Morris, Jones, Hogan and Vardon experimented and learned what works
best. That is settled. Now all we need do is imitate them, no need
to experiment. Hogan said it best, "almost right is COMPLETELY
wrong!"
MOST amateurs remain poor ball strikers and high scorers (whether they
maintain a handicap or not) because their fundamentals are so poor.
They try to use an impossible grip, setup, and backswing. They never
improve from what feels natural and of course in golf (or most other
sports) what feels natural is not what has been proven to be most
effective.
So when we see someone hitting it everywhere but down the middle, we
know he has only himself to blame. He is awful because he wants to
be awful.
Larry
la...@pivotforpower.com
Jan 1, 2012, 5:53:04 PM1/1/12
to
> >Taking it back outside to get it vertical with fully turned shouldersis solid fundamentally.
> >Then AS he shifts to his front leg and tilts his torso away from the target, he rolls it behind him, flattens his left wrist, and brings his hands down toward his right leg
> >-- his right elbow comes down and is engaged by his hips to supply the power throught impact.
>
>
> David Laville, G.S.E.M.
> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
David, buddy, before you further expose your ignorance, I suggest you
> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
watch any of DeFrancisco's swing analysis Youtube videos. Or, just
for fun, take a lesson from a PGA pro who has been taught to use video
to teach. Don't argue with him, just listen. He will pull up videos
of pro swings and compare them to yours-- and explain what you are
seeing. And you will hear Wayne or that teaching pro say what I
wrote above almost verbatim. I didn't make that stuff up.
Larry
Alan Baker
Jan 1, 2012, 8:21:00 PM1/1/12
to
In article
<c4342605-554d-4f49...@l24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
I thought your "point" was that you had to prove to yourself that the
drill you'd been given to try and improve your horrible swing was in
fact some gold standard that we all had to be doing and that only you
were smart enough to be using.
>
> MOST amateurs remain poor ball strikers and high scorers (whether they
> maintain a handicap or not) because their fundamentals are so poor.
> They try to use an impossible grip, setup, and backswing. They never
> improve from what feels natural and of course in golf (or most other
> sports) what feels natural is not what has been proven to be most
> effective.
I taught myself better fundamentals than you've ever had, Larry.
>
> So when we see someone hitting it everywhere but down the middle, we
> know he has only himself to blame. He is awful because he wants to
> be awful.
And you're awful... ...because you're awful.
<c4342605-554d-4f49...@l24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
la...@pivotforpower.com wrote:
> On Dec 29 2011, 5:08 pm, David Laville <dlavi...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > >Their swings look slightly different, but like Trevino and other
> > >champions, they
> > >looked identical through impact, their clubhead approaching the ball
> > >from the inside.
> >
> > And so does the millions of other golfers who swing on plane. So your
> > point was?
> >
> > David Laville, G.S.E.M.
> > The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
>
> My "point" is that those who are serious about developing a golf swing
> that enables them to consistently hit fairways and greens need only to
> take lessons and then do the drills to ingrain the positions and the
> movements of a conventional golf swing. That really is the fastest
> method, just as it is when learning to play a musical instrument or
> learn a foreign language or to perform complex dance steps. We must
> first learn it from someone who is an expert, then "walk through" the
> moves to memorize and ingrain them. In golf, the pioneers including
> Morris, Jones, Hogan and Vardon experimented and learned what works
> best. That is settled. Now all we need do is imitate them, no need
> to experiment. Hogan said it best, "almost right is COMPLETELY
> wrong!"
Funny...
> On Dec 29 2011, 5:08 pm, David Laville <dlavi...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > >Their swings look slightly different, but like Trevino and other
> > >champions, they
> > >looked identical through impact, their clubhead approaching the ball
> > >from the inside.
> >
> > And so does the millions of other golfers who swing on plane. So your
> > point was?
> >
> > David Laville, G.S.E.M.
> > The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
>
> My "point" is that those who are serious about developing a golf swing
> that enables them to consistently hit fairways and greens need only to
> take lessons and then do the drills to ingrain the positions and the
> movements of a conventional golf swing. That really is the fastest
> method, just as it is when learning to play a musical instrument or
> learn a foreign language or to perform complex dance steps. We must
> first learn it from someone who is an expert, then "walk through" the
> moves to memorize and ingrain them. In golf, the pioneers including
> Morris, Jones, Hogan and Vardon experimented and learned what works
> best. That is settled. Now all we need do is imitate them, no need
> to experiment. Hogan said it best, "almost right is COMPLETELY
> wrong!"
I thought your "point" was that you had to prove to yourself that the
drill you'd been given to try and improve your horrible swing was in
fact some gold standard that we all had to be doing and that only you
were smart enough to be using.
>
> MOST amateurs remain poor ball strikers and high scorers (whether they
> maintain a handicap or not) because their fundamentals are so poor.
> They try to use an impossible grip, setup, and backswing. They never
> improve from what feels natural and of course in golf (or most other
> sports) what feels natural is not what has been proven to be most
> effective.
>
> So when we see someone hitting it everywhere but down the middle, we
> know he has only himself to blame. He is awful because he wants to
> be awful.
Alan Baker
Jan 1, 2012, 8:21:38 PM1/1/12
to
In article
<29b89243-ac51-4b4b...@d9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
"Don't argue... ...just listen".
That is perhaps the most hilarious thing you've ever said.
:-)
<29b89243-ac51-4b4b...@d9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
That is perhaps the most hilarious thing you've ever said.
:-)
Frank Ketchum
Jan 1, 2012, 9:52:24 PM1/1/12
to
"Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-084B3...@news.datemas.de...
yardage he claimed.
Then he posted a video of his swing. Hilarity.
Carbon
Jan 1, 2012, 10:11:24 PM1/1/12
to
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 21:52:24 -0500, Frank Ketchum wrote:
> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:alangbaker-084B3...@news.datemas.de...
>> In article
>> <29b89243-ac51-4b4b...@d9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
>> la...@pivotforpower.com wrote:
>>
>>> David, buddy, before you further expose your ignorance, I suggest
>>> you watch any of DeFrancisco's swing analysis Youtube videos. Or,
>>> just for fun, take a lesson from a PGA pro who has been taught to
>>> use video to teach. Don't argue with him, just listen. He will
>>> pull up videos of pro swings and compare them to yours-- and explain
>>> what you are seeing. And you will hear Wayne or that teaching pro
>>> say what I wrote above almost verbatim. I didn't make that stuff
>>> up.
>>
> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:alangbaker-084B3...@news.datemas.de...
>> In article
>> <29b89243-ac51-4b4b...@d9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
>> la...@pivotforpower.com wrote:
>>
>>> David, buddy, before you further expose your ignorance, I suggest
>>> you watch any of DeFrancisco's swing analysis Youtube videos. Or,
>>> just for fun, take a lesson from a PGA pro who has been taught to
>>> use video to teach. Don't argue with him, just listen. He will
>>> pull up videos of pro swings and compare them to yours-- and explain
>>> what you are seeing. And you will hear Wayne or that teaching pro
>>> say what I wrote above almost verbatim. I didn't make that stuff
>>> up.
>>
>> "Don't argue... ...just listen".
>>
>> That is perhaps the most hilarious thing you've ever said.
>
> Nothing will ever beat the 230 yard 5 iron or whatever Dustin Johnson
> type yardage he claimed.
>
> Then he posted a video of his swing. Hilarity.
IIRC it was a 230 yard 2-iron. About the kindest thing you could say is
>>
>> That is perhaps the most hilarious thing you've ever said.
>
> Nothing will ever beat the 230 yard 5 iron or whatever Dustin Johnson
> type yardage he claimed.
>
> Then he posted a video of his swing. Hilarity.
the claimed distance didn't match the swing.
bkn...@conramp.net
Jan 1, 2012, 10:38:11 PM1/1/12
to
going.
Both Alan and David (along with what has always been a majority here)
agree that Larry is full of shit.
BK
Silvio Bierman
Jan 2, 2012, 7:31:31 AM1/2/12
to
possibly make a 2i go farther than a 5i.
David Laville
Jan 2, 2012, 5:51:17 PM1/2/12
to
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 20:21:00 -0500, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:
>> MOST amateurs remain poor ball strikers and high scorers (whether they
>> maintain a handicap or not) because their fundamentals are so poor.
>> They try to use an impossible grip, setup, and backswing. They never
>> improve from what feels natural and of course in golf (or most other
>> sports) what feels natural is not what has been proven to be most
>> effective.
>
>I taught myself better fundamentals than you've ever had, Larry.
Bull crap. Here is a side by side comparison of you and Larry at
impact. Since when is your "head in front of the ball at impact" a
better fundamental than Larry's "head behind the ball at impact"?
http://www.lavillegolfacademy.com/larryvsbaker.JPG
Just another example of the "I'm better than you" attitude from Alan
Baker.
wrote:
>> MOST amateurs remain poor ball strikers and high scorers (whether they
>> maintain a handicap or not) because their fundamentals are so poor.
>> They try to use an impossible grip, setup, and backswing. They never
>> improve from what feels natural and of course in golf (or most other
>> sports) what feels natural is not what has been proven to be most
>> effective.
>
>I taught myself better fundamentals than you've ever had, Larry.
impact. Since when is your "head in front of the ball at impact" a
better fundamental than Larry's "head behind the ball at impact"?
http://www.lavillegolfacademy.com/larryvsbaker.JPG
Just another example of the "I'm better than you" attitude from Alan
Baker.
Alan Baker
Jan 2, 2012, 6:22:43 PM1/2/12
to
In article <g1d4g7hkb8vhpa613...@4ax.com>,
One thing being worse doesn't mean the whole package is worse, David.
BAR
Jan 2, 2012, 6:31:10 PM1/2/12
to
In article <g1d4g7hkb8vhpa613...@4ax.com>,
dlav...@nospam.net says...
You can't argue with the one-eyed no-lie.
dlav...@nospam.net says...
Carbon
Jan 2, 2012, 6:51:46 PM1/2/12
to
you think hits the ball better?
kenpitts
Jan 2, 2012, 9:27:27 PM1/2/12
to
On Jan 2, 4:51 pm, David Laville <dlavi...@nospam.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 20:21:00 -0500, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net>
I've never heard of anyone who could play a lick getting his head in
front of the ball.
Nice catch David.
Ken
> On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 20:21:00 -0500, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net>
front of the ball.
Nice catch David.
Ken
kenpitts
Jan 2, 2012, 9:28:54 PM1/2/12
to
On Jan 2, 5:51 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 16:51:17 -0600, David Laville wrote:
> > On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 20:21:00 -0500, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net>
> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 16:51:17 -0600, David Laville wrote:
> > wrote:
>
> >>> MOST amateurs remain poor ball strikers and high scorers (whether
> >>> they maintain a handicap or not) because their fundamentals are so
> >>> poor. They try to use an impossible grip, setup, and backswing.
> >>> They never improve from what feels natural and of course in golf (or
> >>> most other sports) what feels natural is not what has been proven to
> >>> be most effective.
>
> >>I taught myself better fundamentals than you've ever had, Larry.
>
> > Bull crap. Here is a side by side comparison of you and Larry at
> > impact. Since when is your "head in front of the ball at impact" a
> > better fundamental than Larry's "head behind the ball at impact"?
>
> >http://www.lavillegolfacademy.com/larryvsbaker.JPG
>
> > Just another example of the "I'm better than you" attitude from Alan
> > Baker.
>
> This golf swing minutia is a blast as always, but I have a question: who
> you think hits the ball better?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>> MOST amateurs remain poor ball strikers and high scorers (whether
> >>> they maintain a handicap or not) because their fundamentals are so
> >>> poor. They try to use an impossible grip, setup, and backswing.
> >>> They never improve from what feels natural and of course in golf (or
> >>> most other sports) what feels natural is not what has been proven to
> >>> be most effective.
>
> >>I taught myself better fundamentals than you've ever had, Larry.
>
> > Bull crap. Here is a side by side comparison of you and Larry at
> > impact. Since when is your "head in front of the ball at impact" a
> > better fundamental than Larry's "head behind the ball at impact"?
>
> >http://www.lavillegolfacademy.com/larryvsbaker.JPG
>
> > Just another example of the "I'm better than you" attitude from Alan
> > Baker.
>
> This golf swing minutia is a blast as always, but I have a question: who
>
> - Show quoted text -
Position at impact? Larry. Baker's position is a sure fire recipe for
finding the right rough alternately with the left rough.
Ken
kenpitts
Jan 2, 2012, 9:30:39 PM1/2/12
to
On Jan 1, 9:11 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 21:52:24 -0500, Frank Ketchum wrote:
> > "Alan Baker" <alangba...@telus.net> wrote in message
> On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 21:52:24 -0500, Frank Ketchum wrote:
> >news:alangbaker-084B3...@news.datemas.de...
> >> In article
> >> <29b89243-ac51-4b4b-931e-e9c0a7751...@d9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
> >> la...@pivotforpower.com wrote:
>
> >>> David, buddy, before you further expose your ignorance, I suggest
> >>> you watch any of DeFrancisco's swing analysis Youtube videos. Or,
> >>> just for fun, take a lesson from a PGA pro who has been taught to
> >>> use video to teach. Don't argue with him, just listen. He will
> >>> pull up videos of pro swings and compare them to yours-- and explain
> >>> what you are seeing. And you will hear Wayne or that teaching pro
> >>> say what I wrote above almost verbatim. I didn't make that stuff
> >>> up.
>
> >> "Don't argue... ...just listen".
>
> >> That is perhaps the most hilarious thing you've ever said.
>
> > Nothing will ever beat the 230 yard 5 iron or whatever Dustin Johnson
> > type yardage he claimed.
>
> > Then he posted a video of his swing. Hilarity.
>
> IIRC it was a 230 yard 2-iron. About the kindest thing you could say is
> the claimed distance didn't match the swing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>> David, buddy, before you further expose your ignorance, I suggest
> >>> you watch any of DeFrancisco's swing analysis Youtube videos. Or,
> >>> just for fun, take a lesson from a PGA pro who has been taught to
> >>> use video to teach. Don't argue with him, just listen. He will
> >>> pull up videos of pro swings and compare them to yours-- and explain
> >>> what you are seeing. And you will hear Wayne or that teaching pro
> >>> say what I wrote above almost verbatim. I didn't make that stuff
> >>> up.
>
> >> "Don't argue... ...just listen".
>
> >> That is perhaps the most hilarious thing you've ever said.
>
> > Nothing will ever beat the 230 yard 5 iron or whatever Dustin Johnson
> > type yardage he claimed.
>
> > Then he posted a video of his swing. Hilarity.
>
> IIRC it was a 230 yard 2-iron. About the kindest thing you could say is
>
> - Show quoted text -
Put a 2iron in what I am seeing from Baker and the ball could never
> - Show quoted text -
get about about 5 ft high. 130 yds carry. 40 yds roll.
Ken
kenpitts
Jan 2, 2012, 9:34:22 PM1/2/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
That would be "above about".
> - Show quoted text -
Ken
Alan Baker
Jan 2, 2012, 11:40:23 PM1/2/12
to
Alan Baker
Jan 2, 2012, 11:39:18 PM1/2/12
to
In article
<279d9f04-0684-406a...@f33g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
LOL
Ken: I'll give Larry 4 a side and destroy him.
<279d9f04-0684-406a...@f33g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Ken: I'll give Larry 4 a side and destroy him.
Alan Baker
Jan 2, 2012, 11:39:58 PM1/2/12
to
In article
<41e31b85-8508-49b3...@h12g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
But you have heard of cherry-picking an image, right?
Fact: When I took that video I was playing to a single digit index.
>
> Nice catch David.
>
> Ken
<41e31b85-8508-49b3...@h12g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
Fact: When I took that video I was playing to a single digit index.
>
> Nice catch David.
>
> Ken
Dene
Jan 3, 2012, 1:29:46 AM1/3/12
to
On Jan 2, 2:51 pm, David Laville <dlavi...@nospam.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 20:21:00 -0500, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net>
LOLOLOLOL
> On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 20:21:00 -0500, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net>
Alan Baker
Jan 3, 2012, 11:38:26 AM1/3/12
to
In article
<ec75f869-389c-42f1...@i3g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
I am a better golfer than Larry. There is simply no doubt about it.
If you doubt it, put up your money.
:-)
<ec75f869-389c-42f1...@i3g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
If you doubt it, put up your money.
:-)
Dene
Jan 3, 2012, 12:18:09 PM1/3/12
to
On Jan 3, 8:38 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> In article
> <ec75f869-389c-42f1-a456-cd66e0e34...@i3g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
"alligator mouth, canary ass"
-Greg
> In article
> <ec75f869-389c-42f1-a456-cd66e0e34...@i3g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 2, 2:51 pm, David Laville <dlavi...@nospam.net> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 20:21:00 -0500, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >> MOST amateurs remain poor ball strikers and high scorers (whether they
> > > >> maintain a handicap or not) because their fundamentals are so poor.
> > > >> They try to use an impossible grip, setup, and backswing. They never
> > > >> improve from what feels natural and of course in golf (or most other
> > > >> sports) what feels natural is not what has been proven to be most
> > > >> effective.
>
> > > >I taught myself better fundamentals than you've ever had, Larry.
>
> > > Bull crap. Here is a side by side comparison of you and Larry at
> > > impact. Since when is your "head in front of the ball at impact" a
> > > better fundamental than Larry's "head behind the ball at impact"?
>
> > >http://www.lavillegolfacademy.com/larryvsbaker.JPG
>
> > > Just another example of the "I'm better than you" attitude from Alan
> > > Baker
>
> > LOLOLOLOL
>
> I am a better golfer than Larry. There is simply no doubt about it.
>
> If you doubt it, put up your money.
>
> :-)
Arrange the match. I'll be happy to put up a wager, AMCA.
>
>
>
>
> Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 2, 2:51 pm, David Laville <dlavi...@nospam.net> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 20:21:00 -0500, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >> MOST amateurs remain poor ball strikers and high scorers (whether they
> > > >> maintain a handicap or not) because their fundamentals are so poor.
> > > >> They try to use an impossible grip, setup, and backswing. They never
> > > >> improve from what feels natural and of course in golf (or most other
> > > >> sports) what feels natural is not what has been proven to be most
> > > >> effective.
>
> > > >I taught myself better fundamentals than you've ever had, Larry.
>
> > > Bull crap. Here is a side by side comparison of you and Larry at
> > > impact. Since when is your "head in front of the ball at impact" a
> > > better fundamental than Larry's "head behind the ball at impact"?
>
> > >http://www.lavillegolfacademy.com/larryvsbaker.JPG
>
> > > Just another example of the "I'm better than you" attitude from Alan
> > > Baker
>
> > LOLOLOLOL
>
> I am a better golfer than Larry. There is simply no doubt about it.
>
> If you doubt it, put up your money.
>
> :-)
"alligator mouth, canary ass"
-Greg
Alan Baker
Jan 3, 2012, 6:17:55 PM1/3/12
to
David Laville
Jan 3, 2012, 7:20:51 PM1/3/12
to
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:22:43 -0500, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:
>> >I taught myself better fundamentals than you've ever had, Larry.
>>
>> Bull crap. Here is a side by side comparison of you and Larry at
>> impact. Since when is your "head in front of the ball at impact" a
>> better fundamental than Larry's "head behind the ball at impact"?
>>
>> http://www.lavillegolfacademy.com/larryvsbaker.JPG
>>
>> Just another example of the "I'm better than you" attitude from Alan
>> Baker.
>
>One thing being worse doesn't mean the whole package is worse, David.
That's not what you wrote. Let me remind you;
:Alan Baker wrote;
:I taught myself better fundamentals than you've ever had, Larry.
Since when is you head in front of the ball at impact a better
fundamental then Larry's head behind it?
wrote:
>> >I taught myself better fundamentals than you've ever had, Larry.
>>
>> Bull crap. Here is a side by side comparison of you and Larry at
>> impact. Since when is your "head in front of the ball at impact" a
>> better fundamental than Larry's "head behind the ball at impact"?
>>
>> http://www.lavillegolfacademy.com/larryvsbaker.JPG
>>
>> Just another example of the "I'm better than you" attitude from Alan
>> Baker.
>
>One thing being worse doesn't mean the whole package is worse, David.
:Alan Baker wrote;
:I taught myself better fundamentals than you've ever had, Larry.
Since when is you head in front of the ball at impact a better
fundamental then Larry's head behind it?
kenpitts
Jan 3, 2012, 7:20:55 PM1/3/12
to
> <a2b49acf-87ad-4dac-8153-f2480c4a5...@q17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> sit in the bottom of that cupboard."- Hide quoted text -
I don't want to ever be around you again, psycho.
Ken
>
> - Show quoted text -
From that position, you couldn't hit the two out of your shadow.
> - Show quoted text -
I don't want to ever be around you again, psycho.
Ken
David Laville
Jan 3, 2012, 7:21:14 PM1/3/12
to
On 02 Jan 2012 23:51:46 GMT, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
wrote:
>> http://www.lavillegolfacademy.com/larryvsbaker.JPG
>>
>> Just another example of the "I'm better than you" attitude from Alan
>> Baker.
>
>This golf swing minutia is a blast as alway,
I'm sorry you think head position at impact is minutia. Then again I
can understand how your ignorance of the swing would make you think
that.
> but I have a question: who
>you think hits the ball better?
Ken Pitts
wrote:
>> http://www.lavillegolfacademy.com/larryvsbaker.JPG
>>
>> Just another example of the "I'm better than you" attitude from Alan
>> Baker.
>
I'm sorry you think head position at impact is minutia. Then again I
can understand how your ignorance of the swing would make you think
that.
> but I have a question: who
>you think hits the ball better?
David Laville
Jan 3, 2012, 7:22:05 PM1/3/12
to
On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 11:38:26 -0500, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:
>I am a better golfer than Larry. There is simply no doubt about it.
So?
wrote:
>I am a better golfer than Larry. There is simply no doubt about it.
Carbon
Jan 3, 2012, 7:55:26 PM1/3/12
to
David Laville
Jan 3, 2012, 8:48:44 PM1/3/12
to
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:39:18 -0500, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:
>> Position at impact? Larry. Baker's position is a sure fire recipe for
>> finding the right rough alternately with the left rough.
>
>LOL
>
>Ken: I'll give Larry 4 a side and destroy him.
Wow, you must be one hell of a player to give someone less than half a
stroke a hole and then claim you can destroy them. Says more about
your game than Larry's.
wrote:
>> Position at impact? Larry. Baker's position is a sure fire recipe for
>> finding the right rough alternately with the left rough.
>
>LOL
>
>Ken: I'll give Larry 4 a side and destroy him.
stroke a hole and then claim you can destroy them. Says more about
your game than Larry's.
David Laville
Jan 3, 2012, 8:56:08 PM1/3/12
to
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:39:58 -0500, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:
>> I've never heard of anyone who could play a lick getting his head in
>> front of the ball.
>
>But you have heard of cherry-picking an image, right?
ROTFLMAO! Pointing out a major flaw in your swing is considered
cherry-picking. So I guess your head in front of the ball is
something you consider acceptable?
>Fact: When I took that video I was playing to a single digit index.
Fact: You told Larry you taught yourself better fundamentals than he
ever had.
That turned out to be horse crap.
wrote:
>> I've never heard of anyone who could play a lick getting his head in
>> front of the ball.
>
>But you have heard of cherry-picking an image, right?
cherry-picking. So I guess your head in front of the ball is
something you consider acceptable?
>Fact: When I took that video I was playing to a single digit index.
ever had.
That turned out to be horse crap.
la...@pivotforpower.com
Jan 3, 2012, 9:24:50 PM1/3/12
to
On Jan 3, 5:48 pm, David Laville <dlavi...@nospam.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:39:18 -0500, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net>
there and just throws arms and tries to steer with hands. He is
lucky each time he keeps it inside the fences.
And that is typical. Some, my own brother included, kept making that
mistake until it was deeply ingrained. When they finally want to
score, they take lessons, see themselves doing that, learn the
solution, and find themselves unable to change. I have heard several
very experienced teachers say they have NEVER had a very experienced
student with this fault be able to learn to "turn, SHIFT, swing."
They just can't stop themselves from making a violent shoulders and
arms swing from the top over and over again.
AB is young enough to change, but since he is also a school and
professional failure, I suspect he lacks the patience and persistence
that would be necessary. The same personal traits that caused his
life failures will prevent him from suceeding in golf.
I have often reminded everyone that the same personal attributes
characterize an accomplished musician and someone who speaks another
language and someone who can dance extremely well. Each focused on
his goal and he stuck with it until he did it. AB is wasting his time
posting on Internet discussion groups-- and being banned!
Larry
> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:39:18 -0500, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Position at impact? Larry. Baker's position is a sure fire recipe for
> >> finding the right rough alternately with the left rough.
Correct. He has a beginner's "all arms" violent swing. He stands
>
> >> Position at impact? Larry. Baker's position is a sure fire recipe for
> >> finding the right rough alternately with the left rough.
there and just throws arms and tries to steer with hands. He is
lucky each time he keeps it inside the fences.
And that is typical. Some, my own brother included, kept making that
mistake until it was deeply ingrained. When they finally want to
score, they take lessons, see themselves doing that, learn the
solution, and find themselves unable to change. I have heard several
very experienced teachers say they have NEVER had a very experienced
student with this fault be able to learn to "turn, SHIFT, swing."
They just can't stop themselves from making a violent shoulders and
arms swing from the top over and over again.
AB is young enough to change, but since he is also a school and
professional failure, I suspect he lacks the patience and persistence
that would be necessary. The same personal traits that caused his
life failures will prevent him from suceeding in golf.
I have often reminded everyone that the same personal attributes
characterize an accomplished musician and someone who speaks another
language and someone who can dance extremely well. Each focused on
his goal and he stuck with it until he did it. AB is wasting his time
posting on Internet discussion groups-- and being banned!
Larry
kenpitts
Jan 3, 2012, 9:27:34 PM1/3/12
to
On Jan 3, 7:48 pm, David Laville <dlavi...@nospam.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:39:18 -0500, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net>
Now, that is a real spot, especially on a par 3.
Ken
> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:39:18 -0500, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Position at impact? Larry. Baker's position is a sure fire recipe for
> >> finding the right rough alternately with the left rough.
>
> >LOL
>
> >Ken: I'll give Larry 4 a side and destroy him.
>
> Wow, you must be one hell of a player to give someone less than half a
> stroke a hole and then claim you can destroy them. Says more about
> your game than Larry's.
In my new regular game, we have a guy that we all give 2 shots a hole.
>
> >> Position at impact? Larry. Baker's position is a sure fire recipe for
> >> finding the right rough alternately with the left rough.
>
> >LOL
>
> >Ken: I'll give Larry 4 a side and destroy him.
>
> Wow, you must be one hell of a player to give someone less than half a
> stroke a hole and then claim you can destroy them. Says more about
> your game than Larry's.
Now, that is a real spot, especially on a par 3.
Ken
Alan Baker
Jan 4, 2012, 12:00:24 AM1/4/12
to
In article <sr67g7ddbdpc2j3b3...@4ax.com>,
As usual, you suddenly snip all context when you've really got very
little to say.
little to say.
Alan Baker
Jan 4, 2012, 12:00:57 AM1/4/12
to
In article <7p67g79e2vs4r6sn1...@4ax.com>,
Since when is to be better overall at a thing (fundamentals) to be
better on every individual one on every swing?
better on every individual one on every swing?
Alan Baker
Jan 4, 2012, 12:01:33 AM1/4/12
to
In article
<4f011a80-b3b2-47a2...@k10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
But you're not brave enough to lay down your cash...
>
> I don't want to ever be around you again, psycho.
Hey, I never threw anything...
<4f011a80-b3b2-47a2...@k10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>
> I don't want to ever be around you again, psycho.
Alan Baker
Jan 4, 2012, 12:02:06 AM1/4/12
to
In article <frb7g7dglbig0j27t...@4ax.com>,
It says my game is precisely what I claim it to be, actually.
:-)
:-)
Alan Baker
Jan 4, 2012, 12:02:37 AM1/4/12
to
In article
<e099524d-afe0-4072...@v14g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
:-)
>
<e099524d-afe0-4072...@v14g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
la...@pivotforpower.com wrote:
> On Jan 3, 5:48 pm, David Laville <dlavi...@nospam.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:39:18 -0500, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> Position at impact? Larry. Baker's position is a sure fire recipe for
> > >> finding the right rough alternately with the left rough.
>
> Correct. He has a beginner's "all arms" violent swing. He stands
> there and just throws arms and tries to steer with hands. He is
> lucky each time he keeps it inside the fences.
If you think so, put up your money.
> On Jan 3, 5:48 pm, David Laville <dlavi...@nospam.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:39:18 -0500, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> Position at impact? Larry. Baker's position is a sure fire recipe for
> > >> finding the right rough alternately with the left rough.
>
> Correct. He has a beginner's "all arms" violent swing. He stands
> there and just throws arms and tries to steer with hands. He is
> lucky each time he keeps it inside the fences.
:-)
>
> And that is typical. Some, my own brother included, kept making that
> mistake until it was deeply ingrained. When they finally want to
> score, they take lessons, see themselves doing that, learn the
> solution, and find themselves unable to change. I have heard several
> very experienced teachers say they have NEVER had a very experienced
> student with this fault be able to learn to "turn, SHIFT, swing."
> They just can't stop themselves from making a violent shoulders and
> arms swing from the top over and over again.
>
> AB is young enough to change, but since he is also a school and
> professional failure, I suspect he lacks the patience and persistence
> that would be necessary. The same personal traits that caused his
> life failures will prevent him from suceeding in golf.
>
> I have often reminded everyone that the same personal attributes
> characterize an accomplished musician and someone who speaks another
> language and someone who can dance extremely well. Each focused on
> his goal and he stuck with it until he did it. AB is wasting his time
> posting on Internet discussion groups-- and being banned!
>
> Larry
> mistake until it was deeply ingrained. When they finally want to
> score, they take lessons, see themselves doing that, learn the
> solution, and find themselves unable to change. I have heard several
> very experienced teachers say they have NEVER had a very experienced
> student with this fault be able to learn to "turn, SHIFT, swing."
> They just can't stop themselves from making a violent shoulders and
> arms swing from the top over and over again.
>
> AB is young enough to change, but since he is also a school and
> professional failure, I suspect he lacks the patience and persistence
> that would be necessary. The same personal traits that caused his
> life failures will prevent him from suceeding in golf.
>
> I have often reminded everyone that the same personal attributes
> characterize an accomplished musician and someone who speaks another
> language and someone who can dance extremely well. Each focused on
> his goal and he stuck with it until he did it. AB is wasting his time
> posting on Internet discussion groups-- and being banned!
>
> Larry
Alan Baker
Jan 4, 2012, 12:03:18 AM1/4/12
to
In article <h1c7g7l3rj72goqju...@4ax.com>,
Every swing is forever a work in progress.
>
> >Fact: When I took that video I was playing to a single digit index.
>
> Fact: You told Larry you taught yourself better fundamentals than he
> ever had.
>
> That turned out to be horse crap.
LOL
David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:39:58 -0500, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> I've never heard of anyone who could play a lick getting his head in
> >> front of the ball.
> >
> >But you have heard of cherry-picking an image, right?
>
> ROTFLMAO! Pointing out a major flaw in your swing is considered
> cherry-picking. So I guess your head in front of the ball is
> something you consider acceptable?
Nope. What has one to do with the other.
> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:39:58 -0500, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> I've never heard of anyone who could play a lick getting his head in
> >> front of the ball.
> >
> >But you have heard of cherry-picking an image, right?
>
> ROTFLMAO! Pointing out a major flaw in your swing is considered
> cherry-picking. So I guess your head in front of the ball is
> something you consider acceptable?
Every swing is forever a work in progress.
>
> >Fact: When I took that video I was playing to a single digit index.
>
> Fact: You told Larry you taught yourself better fundamentals than he
> ever had.
>
> That turned out to be horse crap.
MNMikew
Jan 4, 2012, 10:20:14 AM1/4/12
to
"David Laville" <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:7p67g79e2vs4r6sn1...@4ax.com...
David Laville
Jan 4, 2012, 6:57:51 PM1/4/12
to
On 04 Jan 2012 00:55:26 GMT, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
wrote:
>>> but I have a question: who you think hits the ball better?
>>
>> Ken Pitts
>
>Between Larry and Alan?
I don't know, I've never seen either hit a golf ball.
>>> but I have a question: who you think hits the ball better?
>>
>> Ken Pitts
>
>Between Larry and Alan?
David Laville
Jan 4, 2012, 6:58:03 PM1/4/12
to
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:00:24 -0500, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
changes the context of "I am a better golfer than Larry. There is
simply no doubt about it.".
wrote:
>> >I am a better golfer than Larry. There is simply no doubt about it.
>>
>> So?
>
>As usual, you suddenly snip all context when you've really got very
>little to say.
Please, please, please, I beg of you to post what I snipped that
>> >I am a better golfer than Larry. There is simply no doubt about it.
>>
>> So?
>
>As usual, you suddenly snip all context when you've really got very
>little to say.
changes the context of "I am a better golfer than Larry. There is
simply no doubt about it.".
David Laville
Jan 4, 2012, 6:58:35 PM1/4/12
to
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:02:06 -0500, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:
>> >Ken: I'll give Larry 4 a side and destroy him.
>>
>> Wow, you must be one hell of a player to give someone less than half a
>> stroke a hole and then claim you can destroy them. Says more about
>> your game than Larry's.
>
>It says my game is precisely what I claim it to be, actually.
Giving Larry less than half a stroke a hole says you must not be too
much better than him.
wrote:
>> >Ken: I'll give Larry 4 a side and destroy him.
>>
>> Wow, you must be one hell of a player to give someone less than half a
>> stroke a hole and then claim you can destroy them. Says more about
>> your game than Larry's.
>
>It says my game is precisely what I claim it to be, actually.
much better than him.
David Laville
Jan 4, 2012, 6:57:44 PM1/4/12
to
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:22:43 -0500, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:
>> >I taught myself better fundamentals than you've ever had, Larry.
>>
>> Bull crap. Here is a side by side comparison of you and Larry at
>> impact. Since when is your "head in front of the ball at impact" a
>> better fundamental than Larry's "head behind the ball at impact"?
>>
>> http://www.lavillegolfacademy.com/larryvsbaker.JPG
>>
>> Just another example of the "I'm better than you" attitude from Alan
>> Baker.
>
>One thing being worse doesn't mean the whole package is worse, David.
Memory problems? Let me remind you what you wrote;
:Alan Baker wrote;
:I taught myself better fundamentals than you've ever had, Larry.
wrote:
>> >I taught myself better fundamentals than you've ever had, Larry.
>>
>> Bull crap. Here is a side by side comparison of you and Larry at
>> impact. Since when is your "head in front of the ball at impact" a
>> better fundamental than Larry's "head behind the ball at impact"?
>>
>> http://www.lavillegolfacademy.com/larryvsbaker.JPG
>>
>> Just another example of the "I'm better than you" attitude from Alan
>> Baker.
>
>One thing being worse doesn't mean the whole package is worse, David.
:Alan Baker wrote;
:I taught myself better fundamentals than you've ever had, Larry.
Alan Baker
Jan 4, 2012, 7:00:15 PM1/4/12
to
In article <qrp9g7huvk0hbi9vu...@4ax.com>,
Yes, you have. Not in person, but you've certainly seen me hitting golf
balls and commented.
balls and commented.
David Laville
Jan 4, 2012, 6:58:20 PM1/4/12
to
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:00:57 -0500, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
question?
Since you taught yourself better fundamentals than Larry ever had when
is your head in front of the ball at impact a better fundamental then
wrote:
>In article <7p67g79e2vs4r6sn1...@4ax.com>,
> David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:22:43 -0500, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> >I taught myself better fundamentals than you've ever had, Larry.
>> >>
>> >> Bull crap. Here is a side by side comparison of you and Larry at
>> >> impact. Since when is your "head in front of the ball at impact" a
>> >> better fundamental than Larry's "head behind the ball at impact"?
>> >>
>> >> http://www.lavillegolfacademy.com/larryvsbaker.JPG
>> >>
>> >> Just another example of the "I'm better than you" attitude from Alan
>> >> Baker.
>> >
>> >One thing being worse doesn't mean the whole package is worse, David.
>>
>> That's not what you wrote. Let me remind you;
>>
>> :Alan Baker wrote;
>> :I taught myself better fundamentals than you've ever had, Larry.
>>
>> Since when is you head in front of the ball at impact a better
>> fundamental then Larry's head behind it?
>
>Since when is to be better overall at a thing (fundamentals) to be
>better on every individual one on every swing?
Reading comprehension problems or you just refuse to answer my
>In article <7p67g79e2vs4r6sn1...@4ax.com>,
> David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:22:43 -0500, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> >I taught myself better fundamentals than you've ever had, Larry.
>> >>
>> >> Bull crap. Here is a side by side comparison of you and Larry at
>> >> impact. Since when is your "head in front of the ball at impact" a
>> >> better fundamental than Larry's "head behind the ball at impact"?
>> >>
>> >> http://www.lavillegolfacademy.com/larryvsbaker.JPG
>> >>
>> >> Just another example of the "I'm better than you" attitude from Alan
>> >> Baker.
>> >
>> >One thing being worse doesn't mean the whole package is worse, David.
>>
>> That's not what you wrote. Let me remind you;
>>
>> :Alan Baker wrote;
>> :I taught myself better fundamentals than you've ever had, Larry.
>>
>> Since when is you head in front of the ball at impact a better
>> fundamental then Larry's head behind it?
>
>Since when is to be better overall at a thing (fundamentals) to be
>better on every individual one on every swing?
question?
Since you taught yourself better fundamentals than Larry ever had when
is your head in front of the ball at impact a better fundamental then
David Laville
Jan 4, 2012, 6:58:52 PM1/4/12
to
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:03:18 -0500, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
dim wit?
>Every swing is forever a work in progress.
You said you taught yourself better fundamentals than Larry ever had.
wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:39:58 -0500, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> I've never heard of anyone who could play a lick getting his head in
>> >> front of the ball.
>> >
>> >But you have heard of cherry-picking an image, right?
>>
>> ROTFLMAO! Pointing out a major flaw in your swing is considered
>> cherry-picking. So I guess your head in front of the ball is
>> something you consider acceptable?
>
>Nope. What has one to do with the other.
Than if you don't find it acceptable I wasn't cherry-picking, right
>> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:39:58 -0500, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> I've never heard of anyone who could play a lick getting his head in
>> >> front of the ball.
>> >
>> >But you have heard of cherry-picking an image, right?
>>
>> ROTFLMAO! Pointing out a major flaw in your swing is considered
>> cherry-picking. So I guess your head in front of the ball is
>> something you consider acceptable?
>
>Nope. What has one to do with the other.
dim wit?
>Every swing is forever a work in progress.
Alan Baker
Jan 4, 2012, 6:59:42 PM1/4/12
to
In article <2rp9g717a4eskhqd6...@4ax.com>,
Are you really this dim.
To be better in general in a group of things isn't necessarily to be
better at every single one on every single swing.
To be better in general in a group of things isn't necessarily to be
better at every single one on every single swing.
Alan Baker
Jan 4, 2012, 7:03:03 PM1/4/12
to
In article <1sp9g7hr466h04s15...@4ax.com>,
Let's just do that:
> > > > > > >I taught myself better fundamentals than you've ever had, Larry.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bull crap. Here is a side by side comparison of you and Larry at
> > > > > > impact. Since when is your "head in front of the ball at impact" a
> > > > > > better fundamental than Larry's "head behind the ball at impact"?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.lavillegolfacademy.com/larryvsbaker.JPG
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just another example of the "I'm better than you" attitude from Alan
> > > > > > Baker
> > > > >
> > > > > LOLOLOLOL
> >> So?
So: the context was whether or not I really am better at golf than Larry.
You wanted avoid the fact that you disputed it when presented in one
form when you really couldn't admit that it's simply true.
:-)
> > > > > > >I taught myself better fundamentals than you've ever had, Larry.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bull crap. Here is a side by side comparison of you and Larry at
> > > > > > impact. Since when is your "head in front of the ball at impact" a
> > > > > > better fundamental than Larry's "head behind the ball at impact"?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.lavillegolfacademy.com/larryvsbaker.JPG
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just another example of the "I'm better than you" attitude from Alan
> > > > > > Baker
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I am a better golfer than Larry. There is simply no doubt about it.
> > > >
> > > > I am a better golfer than Larry. There is simply no doubt about it.
> > > >
> > > > If you doubt it, put up your money.
To which you said:
> >> So?
So: the context was whether or not I really am better at golf than Larry.
You wanted avoid the fact that you disputed it when presented in one
form when you really couldn't admit that it's simply true.
:-)
Alan Baker
Jan 4, 2012, 7:03:54 PM1/4/12
to
In article <usp9g79u1gkptbnep...@4ax.com>,
In golf, it says I'm quite a bit better than him actually.
Alan Baker
Jan 4, 2012, 7:03:28 PM1/4/12
to
In article <dsp9g7dhmqushghjg...@4ax.com>,
I'm sorry, David, but the comprehension problems are yours.
Alan Baker
Jan 4, 2012, 7:04:41 PM1/4/12
to
In article <dtp9g7h11ak1s5gch...@4ax.com>,
Since when is to be better in general at a set of skills to be better in
specific on one specific instance of one specific skill?
specific on one specific instance of one specific skill?
David Laville
Jan 4, 2012, 7:10:34 PM1/4/12
to
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:59:42 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:
>In article <2rp9g717a4eskhqd6...@4ax.com>,
> David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:22:43 -0500, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> >I taught myself better fundamentals than you've ever had, Larry.
>> >>
>> >> Bull crap. Here is a side by side comparison of you and Larry at
>> >> impact. Since when is your "head in front of the ball at impact" a
>> >> better fundamental than Larry's "head behind the ball at impact"?
>> >>
>> >> http://www.lavillegolfacademy.com/larryvsbaker.JPG
>> >>
>> >> Just another example of the "I'm better than you" attitude from Alan
>> >> Baker.
>> >
>> >One thing being worse doesn't mean the whole package is worse, David.
>>
>> Memory problems? Let me remind you what you wrote;
>>
>> :Alan Baker wrote;
>> :I taught myself better fundamentals than you've ever had, Larry.
>>
>> Since when is your "head in front of the ball at impact" a better
>> fundamental than Larry's "head behind the ball at impact"?
>
>Are you really this dim.
>
>To be better in general in a group of things isn't necessarily to be
>better at every single one on every single swing.
Let me see if I got your quirky logic straight; Because you can't
back up your claim or answer my question I'm the one who's dim?
But lets take this further. Your head is either behind, in-line with
or in front of the ball at impact. How does that encompass a group of
things?
And while you're trying to answer that question answer this one too;
wrote:
>In article <2rp9g717a4eskhqd6...@4ax.com>,
> David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:22:43 -0500, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> >I taught myself better fundamentals than you've ever had, Larry.
>> >>
>> >> Bull crap. Here is a side by side comparison of you and Larry at
>> >> impact. Since when is your "head in front of the ball at impact" a
>> >> better fundamental than Larry's "head behind the ball at impact"?
>> >>
>> >> http://www.lavillegolfacademy.com/larryvsbaker.JPG
>> >>
>> >> Just another example of the "I'm better than you" attitude from Alan
>> >> Baker.
>> >
>> >One thing being worse doesn't mean the whole package is worse, David.
>>
>> Memory problems? Let me remind you what you wrote;
>>
>> :Alan Baker wrote;
>> :I taught myself better fundamentals than you've ever had, Larry.
>>
>> Since when is your "head in front of the ball at impact" a better
>> fundamental than Larry's "head behind the ball at impact"?
>
>Are you really this dim.
>
>To be better in general in a group of things isn't necessarily to be
>better at every single one on every single swing.
back up your claim or answer my question I'm the one who's dim?
But lets take this further. Your head is either behind, in-line with
or in front of the ball at impact. How does that encompass a group of
things?
And while you're trying to answer that question answer this one too;
Alan Baker
Jan 4, 2012, 7:12:18 PM1/4/12
to
In article <daq9g7hf8rm8g1h5u...@4ax.com>,
The fundamentals of golf are the group, David.
Are you really this stupid, or is this just something you're putting on
for effect?
>
> And while you're trying to answer that question answer this one too;
> Since when is you head in front of the ball at impact a better
> fundamental then Larry's head behind it?
I've dealt with this numerous times, David.
Are you really this stupid, or is this just something you're putting on
for effect?
>
> And while you're trying to answer that question answer this one too;
> Since when is you head in front of the ball at impact a better
> fundamental then Larry's head behind it?
David Laville
Jan 4, 2012, 7:14:02 PM1/4/12
to
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:00:15 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:
>In article <qrp9g7huvk0hbi9vu...@4ax.com>,
> David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On 04 Jan 2012 00:55:26 GMT, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>> but I have a question: who you think hits the ball better?
>> >>
>> >> Ken Pitts
>> >
>> >Between Larry and Alan?
>>
>> I don't know, I've never seen either hit a golf ball.
>
>Yes, you have. Not in person, but you've certainly seen me hitting golf
>balls and commented.
Than by those standards I've also seen Larry hitting golf balls on
YouTube videos so I guess I am qualified to say who hits the ball
better.
Larry does.
wrote:
>In article <qrp9g7huvk0hbi9vu...@4ax.com>,
> David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On 04 Jan 2012 00:55:26 GMT, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>> but I have a question: who you think hits the ball better?
>> >>
>> >> Ken Pitts
>> >
>> >Between Larry and Alan?
>>
>> I don't know, I've never seen either hit a golf ball.
>
>Yes, you have. Not in person, but you've certainly seen me hitting golf
>balls and commented.
YouTube videos so I guess I am qualified to say who hits the ball
better.
Larry does.
Alan Baker
Jan 4, 2012, 7:17:07 PM1/4/12
to
In article <imq9g7ptaafn0ouer...@4ax.com>,
animosity for me.
:-)
David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:00:15 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <qrp9g7huvk0hbi9vu...@4ax.com>,
> > David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 04 Jan 2012 00:55:26 GMT, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>> but I have a question: who you think hits the ball better?
> >> >>
> >> >> Ken Pitts
> >> >
> >> >Between Larry and Alan?
> >>
> >> I don't know, I've never seen either hit a golf ball.
> >
> >Yes, you have. Not in person, but you've certainly seen me hitting golf
> >balls and commented.
>
> Than by those standards I've also seen Larry hitting golf balls on
> YouTube videos so I guess I am qualified to say who hits the ball
> better.
>
> Larry does.
I love that you'll wreck your own credibility because of your personal
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:00:15 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <qrp9g7huvk0hbi9vu...@4ax.com>,
> > David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 04 Jan 2012 00:55:26 GMT, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>> but I have a question: who you think hits the ball better?
> >> >>
> >> >> Ken Pitts
> >> >
> >> >Between Larry and Alan?
> >>
> >> I don't know, I've never seen either hit a golf ball.
> >
> >Yes, you have. Not in person, but you've certainly seen me hitting golf
> >balls and commented.
>
> Than by those standards I've also seen Larry hitting golf balls on
> YouTube videos so I guess I am qualified to say who hits the ball
> better.
>
> Larry does.
animosity for me.
:-)
David Laville
Jan 4, 2012, 7:25:19 PM1/4/12
to
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:03:03 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:
So you're saying;
:I taught myself better fundamentals than you've ever had, Larry.
changes the context of:
:I am a better golfer than Larry. There is simply no doubt about it."?
And this;
:If you doubt it, put up your money
Changes the context of;
:I am a better golfer than Larry. There is simply no doubt about it."?
>You wanted avoid the fact that you disputed it when presented in one
>form when you really couldn't admit that it's simply true.
Do you take drugs while posting? My comparison wasn't to you being a
better golfer than Larry. It was about your claim you have better
fundamentals than Larry.
Tells us Einstein, my comparison picture of you and Larry was posted
in response to what statement of yours?
wrote:
:I taught myself better fundamentals than you've ever had, Larry.
changes the context of:
:I am a better golfer than Larry. There is simply no doubt about it."?
And this;
:If you doubt it, put up your money
Changes the context of;
:I am a better golfer than Larry. There is simply no doubt about it."?
>You wanted avoid the fact that you disputed it when presented in one
>form when you really couldn't admit that it's simply true.
better golfer than Larry. It was about your claim you have better
fundamentals than Larry.
Tells us Einstein, my comparison picture of you and Larry was posted
in response to what statement of yours?
David Laville
Jan 4, 2012, 7:27:24 PM1/4/12
to
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:03:28 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
How can the comprehension problems be mine when it's you avoiding the
question or giving me answers to a question I didn't ask?
question or giving me answers to a question I didn't ask?
Alan Baker
Jan 4, 2012, 7:30:45 PM1/4/12
to
In article <4gr9g7tldjp4o6gqe...@4ax.com>,
I've explained the fallacy that is inherent in your question on several
occasions and in several different ways.
Since according to you, failure of the student to learn when you repeat
even a single way of explaining something means that the student is the
problem, I now apply this rule to you.
:-)
occasions and in several different ways.
Since according to you, failure of the student to learn when you repeat
even a single way of explaining something means that the student is the
problem, I now apply this rule to you.
:-)
David Laville
Jan 4, 2012, 7:28:34 PM1/4/12
to
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:03:54 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:
>In article <usp9g79u1gkptbnep...@4ax.com>,
> David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:02:06 -0500, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> >Ken: I'll give Larry 4 a side and destroy him.
>> >>
>> >> Wow, you must be one hell of a player to give someone less than half a
>> >> stroke a hole and then claim you can destroy them. Says more about
>> >> your game than Larry's.
>> >
>> >It says my game is precisely what I claim it to be, actually.
>>
>> Giving Larry less than half a stroke a hole says you must not be too
>> much better than him.
>
>In golf, it says I'm quite a bit better than him actually.
If you're quite a bit better than give him a stroke a hole, Tiger.
wrote:
>In article <usp9g79u1gkptbnep...@4ax.com>,
> David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:02:06 -0500, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> >Ken: I'll give Larry 4 a side and destroy him.
>> >>
>> >> Wow, you must be one hell of a player to give someone less than half a
>> >> stroke a hole and then claim you can destroy them. Says more about
>> >> your game than Larry's.
>> >
>> >It says my game is precisely what I claim it to be, actually.
>>
>> Giving Larry less than half a stroke a hole says you must not be too
>> much better than him.
>
>In golf, it says I'm quite a bit better than him actually.
Alan Baker
Jan 4, 2012, 7:29:22 PM1/4/12
to
In article <lsq9g7ddb9m17t6if...@4ax.com>,
I do have better fundamentals than Larry and a part of the supporting
evidence is that having better fundamentals leads to playing golf better.
>
> Tells us Einstein, my comparison picture of you and Larry was posted
> in response to what statement of yours?
LOL
evidence is that having better fundamentals leads to playing golf better.
>
> Tells us Einstein, my comparison picture of you and Larry was posted
> in response to what statement of yours?
Alan Baker
Jan 4, 2012, 7:35:55 PM1/4/12
to
In article <5mr9g7hkpe0i3a1ui...@4ax.com>,
David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:04:41 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <dtp9g7h11ak1s5gch...@4ax.com>,
> > David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:03:18 -0500, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:39:58 -0500, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> I've never heard of anyone who could play a lick getting his head in
> >> >> >> front of the ball.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >But you have heard of cherry-picking an image, right?
> >> >>
> >> >> ROTFLMAO! Pointing out a major flaw in your swing is considered
> >> >> cherry-picking. So I guess your head in front of the ball is
> >> >> something you consider acceptable?
> >> >
> >> >Nope. What has one to do with the other.
> >>
> >> Than if you don't find it acceptable I wasn't cherry-picking, right
> >> dim wit?
> >>
> >> >Every swing is forever a work in progress.
> >>
> >> You said you taught yourself better fundamentals than Larry ever had.
> >>
> >> Since when is you head in front of the ball at impact a better
> >> fundamental then Larry's head behind it?
> >
> >Since when is to be better in general at a set of skills to be better in
> >specific on one specific instance of one specific skill?
>
> I understand now. It's better for your head to be in front of the
> ball since when is to be better in general at a set of skills to be
>
> Is how they taught you to answer questions in your 2 day ski
> instructor course you're so proud about?
LOL
David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:04:41 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <dtp9g7h11ak1s5gch...@4ax.com>,
> > David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:03:18 -0500, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:39:58 -0500, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> I've never heard of anyone who could play a lick getting his head in
> >> >> >> front of the ball.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >But you have heard of cherry-picking an image, right?
> >> >>
> >> >> ROTFLMAO! Pointing out a major flaw in your swing is considered
> >> >> cherry-picking. So I guess your head in front of the ball is
> >> >> something you consider acceptable?
> >> >
> >> >Nope. What has one to do with the other.
> >>
> >> Than if you don't find it acceptable I wasn't cherry-picking, right
> >> dim wit?
> >>
> >> >Every swing is forever a work in progress.
> >>
> >> You said you taught yourself better fundamentals than Larry ever had.
> >>
> >> Since when is you head in front of the ball at impact a better
> >> fundamental then Larry's head behind it?
> >
> >Since when is to be better in general at a set of skills to be better in
> >specific on one specific instance of one specific skill?
>
> ball since when is to be better in general at a set of skills to be
> better in specific on one specific instance of one specific skill?
I'm sorry, but that is not a sentence that normally occurs in English.
>
> Is how they taught you to answer questions in your 2 day ski
> instructor course you're so proud about?
LOL
David Laville
Jan 4, 2012, 7:34:01 PM1/4/12
to
>In article <dtp9g7h11ak1s5gch...@4ax.com>,
> David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:03:18 -0500, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:39:58 -0500, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> I've never heard of anyone who could play a lick getting his head in
>> >> >> front of the ball.
>> >> >
>> >> >But you have heard of cherry-picking an image, right?
>> >>
>> >> ROTFLMAO! Pointing out a major flaw in your swing is considered
>> >> cherry-picking. So I guess your head in front of the ball is
>> >> something you consider acceptable?
>> >
>> >Nope. What has one to do with the other.
>>
>> Than if you don't find it acceptable I wasn't cherry-picking, right
>> dim wit?
>>
>> >Every swing is forever a work in progress.
>>
>> You said you taught yourself better fundamentals than Larry ever had.
>>
>> Since when is you head in front of the ball at impact a better
>> fundamental then Larry's head behind it?
>
>Since when is to be better in general at a set of skills to be better in
>specific on one specific instance of one specific skill?
I understand now. It's better for your head to be in front of the
> David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:03:18 -0500, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:39:58 -0500, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> I've never heard of anyone who could play a lick getting his head in
>> >> >> front of the ball.
>> >> >
>> >> >But you have heard of cherry-picking an image, right?
>> >>
>> >> ROTFLMAO! Pointing out a major flaw in your swing is considered
>> >> cherry-picking. So I guess your head in front of the ball is
>> >> something you consider acceptable?
>> >
>> >Nope. What has one to do with the other.
>>
>> Than if you don't find it acceptable I wasn't cherry-picking, right
>> dim wit?
>>
>> >Every swing is forever a work in progress.
>>
>> You said you taught yourself better fundamentals than Larry ever had.
>>
>> Since when is you head in front of the ball at impact a better
>> fundamental then Larry's head behind it?
>
>Since when is to be better in general at a set of skills to be better in
>specific on one specific instance of one specific skill?
ball since when is to be better in general at a set of skills to be
better in specific on one specific instance of one specific skill?
Alan Baker
Jan 4, 2012, 7:34:56 PM1/4/12
to
In article <rjr9g7tl31beaau0c...@4ax.com>,
I'm not that much better than he is. :-)
But look at the percentiles.
David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:03:54 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <usp9g79u1gkptbnep...@4ax.com>,
> > David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:02:06 -0500, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >Ken: I'll give Larry 4 a side and destroy him.
> >> >>
> >> >> Wow, you must be one hell of a player to give someone less than half a
> >> >> stroke a hole and then claim you can destroy them. Says more about
> >> >> your game than Larry's.
> >> >
> >> >It says my game is precisely what I claim it to be, actually.
> >>
> >> Giving Larry less than half a stroke a hole says you must not be too
> >> much better than him.
> >
> >In golf, it says I'm quite a bit better than him actually.
>
> If you're quite a bit better than give him a stroke a hole, Tiger.
Nope.
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:03:54 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <usp9g79u1gkptbnep...@4ax.com>,
> > David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:02:06 -0500, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >Ken: I'll give Larry 4 a side and destroy him.
> >> >>
> >> >> Wow, you must be one hell of a player to give someone less than half a
> >> >> stroke a hole and then claim you can destroy them. Says more about
> >> >> your game than Larry's.
> >> >
> >> >It says my game is precisely what I claim it to be, actually.
> >>
> >> Giving Larry less than half a stroke a hole says you must not be too
> >> much better than him.
> >
> >In golf, it says I'm quite a bit better than him actually.
>
> If you're quite a bit better than give him a stroke a hole, Tiger.
I'm not that much better than he is. :-)
But look at the percentiles.
Dene
Jan 4, 2012, 7:40:13 PM1/4/12
to
On Jan 4, 7:20 am, "MNMikew" <MNMiik...@aol.com> wrote:
> "David Laville" <dlavi...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>
> news:7p67g79e2vs4r6sn1...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:22:43 -0500, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net>
not sincere in having a give n take discussion. LOL response is a
diversion when he's cornered.
-Greg
> "David Laville" <dlavi...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>
> news:7p67g79e2vs4r6sn1...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:22:43 -0500, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >>> >I taught myself better fundamentals than you've ever had, Larry.
>
> >>> Bull crap. Here is a side by side comparison of you and Larry at
> >>> impact. Since when is your "head in front of the ball at impact" a
> >>> better fundamental than Larry's "head behind the ball at impact"?
>
> >>>http://www.lavillegolfacademy.com/larryvsbaker.JPG
>
> >>> Just another example of the "I'm better than you" attitude from Alan
> >>> Baker.
>
> >>One thing being worse doesn't mean the whole package is worse, David.
>
> > That's not what you wrote. Let me remind you;
>
> > :Alan Baker wrote;
> > :I taught myself better fundamentals than you've ever had, Larry.
>
> > Since when is you head in front of the ball at impact a better
> > fundamental then Larry's head behind it?
>
> Watch it David! He's an expert in physical skills. LOL!
More like trolling skills. Clearly he's doing that right now. He is
>
> >>> >I taught myself better fundamentals than you've ever had, Larry.
>
> >>> Bull crap. Here is a side by side comparison of you and Larry at
> >>> impact. Since when is your "head in front of the ball at impact" a
> >>> better fundamental than Larry's "head behind the ball at impact"?
>
> >>>http://www.lavillegolfacademy.com/larryvsbaker.JPG
>
> >>> Just another example of the "I'm better than you" attitude from Alan
> >>> Baker.
>
> >>One thing being worse doesn't mean the whole package is worse, David.
>
> > That's not what you wrote. Let me remind you;
>
> > :Alan Baker wrote;
> > :I taught myself better fundamentals than you've ever had, Larry.
>
> > Since when is you head in front of the ball at impact a better
> > fundamental then Larry's head behind it?
>
> Watch it David! He's an expert in physical skills. LOL!
not sincere in having a give n take discussion. LOL response is a
diversion when he's cornered.
-Greg
Alan Baker
Jan 4, 2012, 7:42:00 PM1/4/12
to
In article
<90673dfd-c196-4e61...@t8g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
I'm quite sincere. Alas, David is not. He demonstrated this nicely by
declaring Larry's swing better than mine, which even the most untrained
eye can see is complete nonsense.
:-)
<90673dfd-c196-4e61...@t8g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
declaring Larry's swing better than mine, which even the most untrained
eye can see is complete nonsense.
:-)
Dene
Jan 4, 2012, 7:41:46 PM1/4/12
to
On Jan 4, 4:12 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> In article <daq9g7hf8rm8g1h5uoq1desnqqop8fi...@4ax.com>,
> David Laville <dlavi...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:59:42 -0800, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > >In article <2rp9g717a4eskhqd60eebf6ih0gikon...@4ax.com>,
> > > David Laville <dlavi...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > >> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:22:43 -0500, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net>
Gotta hand it to UA. His trolling skills far surpass Felicity.
-Greg
> In article <daq9g7hf8rm8g1h5uoq1desnqqop8fi...@4ax.com>,
> David Laville <dlavi...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:59:42 -0800, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > >In article <2rp9g717a4eskhqd60eebf6ih0gikon...@4ax.com>,
> > > David Laville <dlavi...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > >> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:22:43 -0500, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net>
-Greg
David Laville
Jan 4, 2012, 7:42:42 PM1/4/12
to
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:12:18 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
So what group of fundamentals says its okay to have your head in front
of the ball at impact?
>Are you really this stupid, or is this just something you're putting on
>for effect?
I'm the one who's stupid because you can't tell us what or what group
of fundamentals says your head in front of the ball at impact is a
better fundamental than Larry head behind it?
>> And while you're trying to answer that question answer this one too;
>> Since when is you head in front of the ball at impact a better
>> fundamental then Larry's head behind it?
>
>I've dealt with this numerous times, David.
I know you dodged the question every time but never did deal with it.
of the ball at impact?
>Are you really this stupid, or is this just something you're putting on
>for effect?
of fundamentals says your head in front of the ball at impact is a
better fundamental than Larry head behind it?
>> And while you're trying to answer that question answer this one too;
>> Since when is you head in front of the ball at impact a better
>> fundamental then Larry's head behind it?
>
>I've dealt with this numerous times, David.
Alan Baker
Jan 4, 2012, 7:46:51 PM1/4/12
to
In article <o0s9g7t4hae9vh3bb...@4ax.com>,
My god: you really aren't play acting, are you?
>
> >Are you really this stupid, or is this just something you're putting on
> >for effect?
>
> I'm the one who's stupid because you can't tell us what or what group
> of fundamentals says your head in front of the ball at impact is a
> better fundamental than Larry head behind it?
>
> >> And while you're trying to answer that question answer this one too;
> >> Since when is you head in front of the ball at impact a better
> >> fundamental then Larry's head behind it?
> >
> >I've dealt with this numerous times, David.
>
> I know you dodged the question every time but never did deal with it.
LOL
>
> >Are you really this stupid, or is this just something you're putting on
> >for effect?
>
> I'm the one who's stupid because you can't tell us what or what group
> of fundamentals says your head in front of the ball at impact is a
> better fundamental than Larry head behind it?
>
> >> And while you're trying to answer that question answer this one too;
> >> Since when is you head in front of the ball at impact a better
> >> fundamental then Larry's head behind it?
> >
> >I've dealt with this numerous times, David.
>
> I know you dodged the question every time but never did deal with it.
David Laville
Jan 4, 2012, 7:56:13 PM1/4/12
to
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:29:22 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:
>> Do you take drugs while posting? My comparison wasn't to you being a
>> better golfer than Larry. It was about your claim you have better
>> fundamentals than Larry.
>
>I do have better fundamentals than Larry
No you don't. My side by side comparison proved it.
>and a part of the supporting
>evidence is that having better fundamentals leads to playing golf better.
And lets say you do.
So?
wrote:
>> Do you take drugs while posting? My comparison wasn't to you being a
>> better golfer than Larry. It was about your claim you have better
>> fundamentals than Larry.
>
>I do have better fundamentals than Larry
>and a part of the supporting
>evidence is that having better fundamentals leads to playing golf better.
So?
Alan Baker
Jan 4, 2012, 7:58:07 PM1/4/12
to
In article <k6t9g7dtq9vt2c4sq...@4ax.com>,
fundamental, was worse than one and only one SWING made by Larry.
>
> >and a part of the supporting
> >evidence is that having better fundamentals leads to playing golf better.
>
> And lets say you do.
>
> So?
And here we go again...
So my playing better golf supports my claim that I have better
fundamentals.
You really aren't play acting, are you?
David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:29:22 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Do you take drugs while posting? My comparison wasn't to you being a
> >> better golfer than Larry. It was about your claim you have better
> >> fundamentals than Larry.
> >
> >I do have better fundamentals than Larry
>
> No you don't. My side by side comparison proved it.
No. They prove that during one specific session one specific
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:29:22 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Do you take drugs while posting? My comparison wasn't to you being a
> >> better golfer than Larry. It was about your claim you have better
> >> fundamentals than Larry.
> >
> >I do have better fundamentals than Larry
>
> No you don't. My side by side comparison proved it.
fundamental, was worse than one and only one SWING made by Larry.
>
> >and a part of the supporting
> >evidence is that having better fundamentals leads to playing golf better.
>
> And lets say you do.
>
> So?
So my playing better golf supports my claim that I have better
fundamentals.
You really aren't play acting, are you?
David Laville
Jan 4, 2012, 7:58:12 PM1/4/12
to
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:17:07 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:
>
wrote:
>
>I love that you'll wreck your own credibility because of your personal
>animosity for me.
Funny how you're blinded by your own hypocrisy.
>animosity for me.
Alan Baker
Jan 4, 2012, 7:58:49 PM1/4/12
to
In article <r9t9g7tr720jd4kho...@4ax.com>,
LLLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Seriously, David: do you even know what that word means and can you show
an example of how I've been hypocritical in any of this?
Seriously, David: do you even know what that word means and can you show
an example of how I've been hypocritical in any of this?
David Laville
Jan 4, 2012, 8:01:15 PM1/4/12
to
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:30:45 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:
>> How can the comprehension problems be mine when it's you avoiding the
>> question or giving me answers to a question I didn't ask?
>
>I've explained the fallacy that is inherent in your question on several
>occasions and in several different ways.
The only fallacy you've demonstrated is your fallacy about your swing
fundamentals.
wrote:
>> How can the comprehension problems be mine when it's you avoiding the
>> question or giving me answers to a question I didn't ask?
>
>I've explained the fallacy that is inherent in your question on several
>occasions and in several different ways.
fundamentals.
Alan Baker
Jan 4, 2012, 8:02:36 PM1/4/12
to
In article <5et9g7hvf4guk4lng...@4ax.com>,
LOL
Me: "I have a better collection of stamps than Larry"
You: "Aha! Larry had a stamp on one afternoon that was better than a
stamp in your collection! Got you!".
Me: "I have a better collection of stamps than Larry"
You: "Aha! Larry had a stamp on one afternoon that was better than a
stamp in your collection! Got you!".
David Laville
Jan 4, 2012, 8:06:24 PM1/4/12
to
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:35:55 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:
>> I understand now. It's better for your head to be in front of the
>> ball since when is to be better in general at a set of skills to be
>> better in specific on one specific instance of one specific skill?
>
>I'm sorry, but that is not a sentence that normally occurs in English.
And your psycho babble didn't answer my question.
wrote:
>> I understand now. It's better for your head to be in front of the
>> ball since when is to be better in general at a set of skills to be
>> better in specific on one specific instance of one specific skill?
>
>I'm sorry, but that is not a sentence that normally occurs in English.
David Laville
Jan 4, 2012, 8:04:08 PM1/4/12
to
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:34:56 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
:In golf, it says I'm quite a bit better than him actually.
So are you "quite a bit better" or "not that much better"?
wrote:
>In article <rjr9g7tl31beaau0c...@4ax.com>,
> David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:03:54 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <usp9g79u1gkptbnep...@4ax.com>,
>> > David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:02:06 -0500, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> >Ken: I'll give Larry 4 a side and destroy him.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Wow, you must be one hell of a player to give someone less than half a
>> >> >> stroke a hole and then claim you can destroy them. Says more about
>> >> >> your game than Larry's.
>> >> >
>> >> >It says my game is precisely what I claim it to be, actually.
>> >>
>> >> Giving Larry less than half a stroke a hole says you must not be too
>> >> much better than him.
>> >
>> >In golf, it says I'm quite a bit better than him actually.
>>
>> If you're quite a bit better than give him a stroke a hole, Tiger.
>
>Nope.
>
>I'm not that much better than he is. :-)
>
>But look at the percentiles.
I'll take a look at what you wrote earlier;
>In article <rjr9g7tl31beaau0c...@4ax.com>,
> David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:03:54 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <usp9g79u1gkptbnep...@4ax.com>,
>> > David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:02:06 -0500, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> >Ken: I'll give Larry 4 a side and destroy him.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Wow, you must be one hell of a player to give someone less than half a
>> >> >> stroke a hole and then claim you can destroy them. Says more about
>> >> >> your game than Larry's.
>> >> >
>> >> >It says my game is precisely what I claim it to be, actually.
>> >>
>> >> Giving Larry less than half a stroke a hole says you must not be too
>> >> much better than him.
>> >
>> >In golf, it says I'm quite a bit better than him actually.
>>
>> If you're quite a bit better than give him a stroke a hole, Tiger.
>
>Nope.
>
>I'm not that much better than he is. :-)
>
>But look at the percentiles.
:In golf, it says I'm quite a bit better than him actually.
So are you "quite a bit better" or "not that much better"?
David Laville
Jan 4, 2012, 8:09:24 PM1/4/12
to
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:46:51 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:
>> So what group of fundamentals says its okay to have your head in front
>> of the ball at impact?
>
>My god: you really aren't play acting, are you?
This diversion answers my question how?
wrote:
>> So what group of fundamentals says its okay to have your head in front
>> of the ball at impact?
>
>My god: you really aren't play acting, are you?
Alan Baker
Jan 4, 2012, 8:10:18 PM1/4/12
to
In article <ijt9g7tag9udpslfh...@4ax.com>,
I'm quite a bit better, David.
You really aren't play acting, are you?
You really aren't play acting, are you?
Alan Baker
Jan 4, 2012, 8:10:50 PM1/4/12
to
In article <fpt9g795d44soqucv...@4ax.com>,
Your question is an incomprehensible mess that starts as a statement and
then sort of morphs into a question.
then sort of morphs into a question.
David Laville
Jan 4, 2012, 8:08:02 PM1/4/12
to
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:42:00 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:
>I'm quite sincere. Alas, David is not. He demonstrated this nicely by
>declaring Larry's swing better than mine, which even the most untrained
>eye can see is complete nonsense.
Okay your swing is better than Larry's.
So?
wrote:
>I'm quite sincere. Alas, David is not. He demonstrated this nicely by
>declaring Larry's swing better than mine, which even the most untrained
>eye can see is complete nonsense.
So?
Alan Baker
Jan 4, 2012, 8:13:52 PM1/4/12
to
In article <91u9g71js8cq4efpi...@4ax.com>,
I'm not explaining yet again, David. I've tried far harder to make you
understand than you bother before declaring your golf students to be the
problem and you still don't get it.
understand than you bother before declaring your golf students to be the
problem and you still don't get it.
Alan Baker
Jan 4, 2012, 8:12:41 PM1/4/12
to
In article <kut9g75dqnpkt0ub9...@4ax.com>,
So your credibility is crap, because not an hour ago you declared the
opposite just because you dislike me.
I can think of no more deserving fate for you.
opposite just because you dislike me.
I can think of no more deserving fate for you.
David Laville
Jan 4, 2012, 8:17:25 PM1/4/12
to
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:58:07 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:
>> No you don't. My side by side comparison proved it.
>
>No. They prove that during one specific session one specific
>fundamental, was worse than one and only one SWING made by Larry.
I was hoping you would say that.
Your head was in front of the ball because you substitute a pivot sway
for a pivot turn to shift your weight and deliver the club to the
ball. Larry's head was behind the ball because he used a pivot turn.
So there's another better fundamental Larry has that you don't.
You really need to quit when you're behind.
>> >and a part of the supporting
>> >evidence is that having better fundamentals leads to playing golf better.
>>
>> And lets say you do.
>>
>> So?
>
>And here we go again...
>
>So my playing better golf supports my claim that I have better
>fundamentals.
Let's say you do.
So?
wrote:
>> No you don't. My side by side comparison proved it.
>
>No. They prove that during one specific session one specific
>fundamental, was worse than one and only one SWING made by Larry.
Your head was in front of the ball because you substitute a pivot sway
for a pivot turn to shift your weight and deliver the club to the
ball. Larry's head was behind the ball because he used a pivot turn.
So there's another better fundamental Larry has that you don't.
You really need to quit when you're behind.
>> >and a part of the supporting
>> >evidence is that having better fundamentals leads to playing golf better.
>>
>> And lets say you do.
>>
>> So?
>
>And here we go again...
>
>So my playing better golf supports my claim that I have better
>fundamentals.
So?
Alan Baker
Jan 4, 2012, 8:19:27 PM1/4/12
to
In article <18u9g7hl6npm2e8l1...@4ax.com>,
another.
>
> You really need to quit when you're behind.
LOL
>
> >> >and a part of the supporting
> >> >evidence is that having better fundamentals leads to playing golf better.
> >>
> >> And lets say you do.
> >>
> >> So?
> >
> >And here we go again...
> >
> >So my playing better golf supports my claim that I have better
> >fundamentals.
>
> Let's say you do.
>
> So?
David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:58:07 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> No you don't. My side by side comparison proved it.
> >
> >No. They prove that during one specific session one specific
> >fundamental, was worse than one and only one SWING made by Larry.
>
> I was hoping you would say that.
>
> Your head was in front of the ball because you substitute a pivot sway
> for a pivot turn to shift your weight and deliver the club to the
> ball. Larry's head was behind the ball because he used a pivot turn.
>
> So there's another better fundamental Larry has that you don't.
No. Because you've turned the first fundamental into an outcome of
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:58:07 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> No you don't. My side by side comparison proved it.
> >
> >No. They prove that during one specific session one specific
> >fundamental, was worse than one and only one SWING made by Larry.
>
> I was hoping you would say that.
>
> Your head was in front of the ball because you substitute a pivot sway
> for a pivot turn to shift your weight and deliver the club to the
> ball. Larry's head was behind the ball because he used a pivot turn.
>
> So there's another better fundamental Larry has that you don't.
another.
>
> You really need to quit when you're behind.
>
> >> >and a part of the supporting
> >> >evidence is that having better fundamentals leads to playing golf better.
> >>
> >> And lets say you do.
> >>
> >> So?
> >
> >And here we go again...
> >
> >So my playing better golf supports my claim that I have better
> >fundamentals.
>
> Let's say you do.
>
> So?
David Laville
Jan 4, 2012, 8:20:04 PM1/4/12
to
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:58:49 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
participate with your personal animosity for others?
Gee, just how did you get that reputation as a nut case and stalker?
wrote:
>In article <r9t9g7tr720jd4kho...@4ax.com>,
> David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:17:07 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >I love that you'll wreck your own credibility because of your personal
>> >animosity for me.
>>
>> Funny how you're blinded by your own hypocrisy.
>
>LLLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
>
>Seriously, David: do you even know what that word means and can you show
>an example of how I've been hypocritical in any of this?
Are you aware how you've wrecked your credibility in any group you
>In article <r9t9g7tr720jd4kho...@4ax.com>,
> David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:17:07 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >I love that you'll wreck your own credibility because of your personal
>> >animosity for me.
>>
>> Funny how you're blinded by your own hypocrisy.
>
>LLLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
>
>Seriously, David: do you even know what that word means and can you show
>an example of how I've been hypocritical in any of this?
participate with your personal animosity for others?
Gee, just how did you get that reputation as a nut case and stalker?
Dene
Jan 4, 2012, 8:13:44 PM1/4/12
to
On Jan 4, 4:34 pm, David Laville <dlavi...@nospam.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:04:41 -0800, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <dtp9g7h11ak1s5gchkn6j9hga8gq09c...@4ax.com>,
> > David Laville <dlavi...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:03:18 -0500, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:39:58 -0500, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net>
-Greg
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:04:41 -0800, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <dtp9g7h11ak1s5gchkn6j9hga8gq09c...@4ax.com>,
> > David Laville <dlavi...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:03:18 -0500, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:39:58 -0500, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> I've never heard of anyone who could play a lick getting his head in
> >> >> >> front of the ball.
>
> >> >> >But you have heard of cherry-picking an image, right?
>
> >> >> ROTFLMAO! Pointing out a major flaw in your swing is considered
> >> >> cherry-picking. So I guess your head in front of the ball is
> >> >> something you consider acceptable?
>
> >> >Nope. What has one to do with the other.
>
> >> Than if you don't find it acceptable I wasn't cherry-picking, right
> >> dim wit?
>
> >> >Every swing is forever a work in progress.
>
> >> You said you taught yourself better fundamentals than Larry ever had.
>
> >> Since when is you head in front of the ball at impact a better
> >> fundamental then Larry's head behind it?
>
> >Since when is to be better in general at a set of skills to be better in
> >specific on one specific instance of one specific skill?
>
> I understand now. It's better for your head to be in front of the
> ball since when is to be better in general at a set of skills to be
> better in specific on one specific instance of one specific skill?
>
> Is how they taught you to answer questions in your 2 day ski
> instructor course you're so proud about?
I'm predicting an LOL for his answer.
>
> >> >> >> I've never heard of anyone who could play a lick getting his head in
> >> >> >> front of the ball.
>
> >> >> >But you have heard of cherry-picking an image, right?
>
> >> >> ROTFLMAO! Pointing out a major flaw in your swing is considered
> >> >> cherry-picking. So I guess your head in front of the ball is
> >> >> something you consider acceptable?
>
> >> >Nope. What has one to do with the other.
>
> >> Than if you don't find it acceptable I wasn't cherry-picking, right
> >> dim wit?
>
> >> >Every swing is forever a work in progress.
>
> >> You said you taught yourself better fundamentals than Larry ever had.
>
> >> Since when is you head in front of the ball at impact a better
> >> fundamental then Larry's head behind it?
>
> >Since when is to be better in general at a set of skills to be better in
> >specific on one specific instance of one specific skill?
>
> I understand now. It's better for your head to be in front of the
> ball since when is to be better in general at a set of skills to be
> better in specific on one specific instance of one specific skill?
>
> Is how they taught you to answer questions in your 2 day ski
> instructor course you're so proud about?
-Greg
Alan Baker
Jan 4, 2012, 8:21:26 PM1/4/12
to
In article <rhu9g7l69idtebmdr...@4ax.com>,
You, OTOH, first declared Larry's swing better than mine, then had to
retract that statement before even an hour had passed.
>
> Gee, just how did you get that reputation as a nut case and stalker?
David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:58:49 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <r9t9g7tr720jd4kho...@4ax.com>,
> > David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:17:07 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >I love that you'll wreck your own credibility because of your personal
> >> >animosity for me.
> >>
> >> Funny how you're blinded by your own hypocrisy.
> >
> >LLLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
> >
> >Seriously, David: do you even know what that word means and can you show
> >an example of how I've been hypocritical in any of this?
>
> Are you aware how you've wrecked your credibility in any group you
> participate with your personal animosity for others?
I've "wrecked my credibility" with pompous usenet jerks. I'm shattered.
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:58:49 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <r9t9g7tr720jd4kho...@4ax.com>,
> > David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:17:07 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >I love that you'll wreck your own credibility because of your personal
> >> >animosity for me.
> >>
> >> Funny how you're blinded by your own hypocrisy.
> >
> >LLLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
> >
> >Seriously, David: do you even know what that word means and can you show
> >an example of how I've been hypocritical in any of this?
>
> Are you aware how you've wrecked your credibility in any group you
> participate with your personal animosity for others?
You, OTOH, first declared Larry's swing better than mine, then had to
retract that statement before even an hour had passed.
>
> Gee, just how did you get that reputation as a nut case and stalker?
Alan Baker
Jan 4, 2012, 8:21:44 PM1/4/12
to
David Laville
Jan 4, 2012, 8:23:47 PM1/4/12
to
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:02:36 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:
>In article <5et9g7hvf4guk4lng...@4ax.com>,
> David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:30:45 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> How can the comprehension problems be mine when it's you avoiding the
>> >> question or giving me answers to a question I didn't ask?
>> >
>> >I've explained the fallacy that is inherent in your question on several
>> >occasions and in several different ways.
>>
>> The only fallacy you've demonstrated is your fallacy about your swing
>> fundamentals.
>
>LOL
>
>Me: "I have a better collection of stamps than Larry"
>
>You: "Aha! Larry had a stamp on one afternoon that was better than a
>stamp in your collection! Got you!".
You would have a better collection of stamps than Larry.
>In article <5et9g7hvf4guk4lng...@4ax.com>,
> David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:30:45 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> How can the comprehension problems be mine when it's you avoiding the
>> >> question or giving me answers to a question I didn't ask?
>> >
>> >I've explained the fallacy that is inherent in your question on several
>> >occasions and in several different ways.
>>
>> The only fallacy you've demonstrated is your fallacy about your swing
>> fundamentals.
>
>LOL
>
>Me: "I have a better collection of stamps than Larry"
>
>You: "Aha! Larry had a stamp on one afternoon that was better than a
>stamp in your collection! Got you!".
Alan Baker
Jan 4, 2012, 8:24:20 PM1/4/12
to
In article <anu9g7p1rkb4acqpf...@4ax.com>,
David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:02:36 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <5et9g7hvf4guk4lng...@4ax.com>,
> > David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:30:45 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> How can the comprehension problems be mine when it's you avoiding the
> >> >> question or giving me answers to a question I didn't ask?
> >> >
> >> >I've explained the fallacy that is inherent in your question on several
> >> >occasions and in several different ways.
> >>
> >> The only fallacy you've demonstrated is your fallacy about your swing
> >> fundamentals.
> >
> >LOL
> >
> >Me: "I have a better collection of stamps than Larry"
> >
> >You: "Aha! Larry had a stamp on one afternoon that was better than a
> >stamp in your collection! Got you!".
>
> You would have a better collection of stamps than Larry.
You really aren't play acting, are you?
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:02:36 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <5et9g7hvf4guk4lng...@4ax.com>,
> > David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:30:45 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> How can the comprehension problems be mine when it's you avoiding the
> >> >> question or giving me answers to a question I didn't ask?
> >> >
> >> >I've explained the fallacy that is inherent in your question on several
> >> >occasions and in several different ways.
> >>
> >> The only fallacy you've demonstrated is your fallacy about your swing
> >> fundamentals.
> >
> >LOL
> >
> >Me: "I have a better collection of stamps than Larry"
> >
> >You: "Aha! Larry had a stamp on one afternoon that was better than a
> >stamp in your collection! Got you!".
>
> You would have a better collection of stamps than Larry.
David Laville
Jan 4, 2012, 8:35:03 PM1/4/12
to
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:10:18 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
Yet when asked to give him a stroke a hole because you're "quite a bit
better" suddenly:
:I'm not that much better than he is.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaa
better" suddenly:
:I'm not that much better than he is.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaa
David Laville
Jan 4, 2012, 8:37:58 PM1/4/12
to
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:10:50 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
:Since when is you head in front of the ball at impact a better
What part of that question is a statement?
Where does it morph into a question?
wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:35:55 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> I understand now. It's better for your head to be in front of the
>> >> ball since when is to be better in general at a set of skills to be
>> >> better in specific on one specific instance of one specific skill?
>> >
>> >I'm sorry, but that is not a sentence that normally occurs in English.
>>
>> And your psycho babble didn't answer my question.
>
>Your question is an incomprehensible mess that starts as a statement and
>then sort of morphs into a question.
Really? Let me repeat my question;
>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:35:55 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> I understand now. It's better for your head to be in front of the
>> >> ball since when is to be better in general at a set of skills to be
>> >> better in specific on one specific instance of one specific skill?
>> >
>> >I'm sorry, but that is not a sentence that normally occurs in English.
>>
>> And your psycho babble didn't answer my question.
>
>Your question is an incomprehensible mess that starts as a statement and
>then sort of morphs into a question.
:Since when is you head in front of the ball at impact a better
:fundamental then Larry's head behind it?
What part of that question is incomprehensible?
What part of that question is a statement?
Where does it morph into a question?
Alan Baker
Jan 4, 2012, 8:38:11 PM1/4/12
to
In article <rbv9g7pmmttd303to...@4ax.com>,
8 strokes a round when they are the difference between being an 18+ and
being a 10.9 simply is quite a bit better by the most sensible measure
there is, David.
I'm sure you'd agree that at least the top PGA Tour players are quite a
bit better than an amateur scratch golfer, but even the top tour players
couldn't give a scratch golfer a stroke a hole, now could they?
Now that I've spelled it out in rigorous detail, I'm sure you're reply
will be, "So?"
>
> :I'm not that much better than he is.
>
> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
> ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaa
You're not play acting, are you?
being a 10.9 simply is quite a bit better by the most sensible measure
there is, David.
I'm sure you'd agree that at least the top PGA Tour players are quite a
bit better than an amateur scratch golfer, but even the top tour players
couldn't give a scratch golfer a stroke a hole, now could they?
Now that I've spelled it out in rigorous detail, I'm sure you're reply
will be, "So?"
>
> :I'm not that much better than he is.
>
> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
> ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaa
You're not play acting, are you?
Alan Baker
Jan 4, 2012, 8:39:27 PM1/4/12
to
In article <ajv9g7plaj4f0mhvc...@4ax.com>,
>
> What part of that question is incomprehensible?
No part, but I've explained the fallacy in that question too many times
in several different ways and you continue to fail in comprehension.
>
> What part of that question is a statement?
>
> Where does it morph into a question?
David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:10:50 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:35:55 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> I understand now. It's better for your head to be in front of the
> >> >> ball since when is to be better in general at a set of skills to be
> >> >> better in specific on one specific instance of one specific skill?
> >> >
> >> >I'm sorry, but that is not a sentence that normally occurs in English.
> >>
> >> And your psycho babble didn't answer my question.
> >
> >Your question is an incomprehensible mess that starts as a statement and
> >then sort of morphs into a question.
>
> Really? Let me repeat my question;
>
> :Since when is you head in front of the ball at impact a better
> :fundamental then Larry's head behind it?
That's not the question that was in your last post.
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:10:50 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:35:55 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> I understand now. It's better for your head to be in front of the
> >> >> ball since when is to be better in general at a set of skills to be
> >> >> better in specific on one specific instance of one specific skill?
> >> >
> >> >I'm sorry, but that is not a sentence that normally occurs in English.
> >>
> >> And your psycho babble didn't answer my question.
> >
> >Your question is an incomprehensible mess that starts as a statement and
> >then sort of morphs into a question.
>
> Really? Let me repeat my question;
>
> :Since when is you head in front of the ball at impact a better
> :fundamental then Larry's head behind it?
>
> What part of that question is incomprehensible?
in several different ways and you continue to fail in comprehension.
>
> What part of that question is a statement?
>
> Where does it morph into a question?
David Laville
Jan 4, 2012, 8:43:02 PM1/4/12
to
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:12:41 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:42:00 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm quite sincere. Alas, David is not. He demonstrated this nicely by
>> >declaring Larry's swing better than mine, which even the most untrained
>> >eye can see is complete nonsense.
>>
>> Okay your swing is better than Larry's.
>>
>> So?
>
>So your credibility is crap, because not an hour ago you declared the
>opposite just because you dislike me.
I was trying to make a point, dim wit.
>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:42:00 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm quite sincere. Alas, David is not. He demonstrated this nicely by
>> >declaring Larry's swing better than mine, which even the most untrained
>> >eye can see is complete nonsense.
>>
>> Okay your swing is better than Larry's.
>>
>> So?
>
>So your credibility is crap, because not an hour ago you declared the
>opposite just because you dislike me.
So what if your swing is better than Larry's?
David Laville
Jan 4, 2012, 8:45:56 PM1/4/12
to
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:13:52 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
how is your head in front of the ball at impact a better fundamental
than Larry's head behind it?
wrote:
>In article <91u9g71js8cq4efpi...@4ax.com>,
> David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:46:51 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> So what group of fundamentals says its okay to have your head in front
>> >> of the ball at impact?
>> >
>> >My god: you really aren't play acting, are you?
>>
>> This diversion answers my question how?
>
>I'm not explaining yet again, David. I've tried far harder to make you
>understand than you bother before declaring your golf students to be the
>problem and you still don't get it.
What does my golf student have to do with you answering the question
>In article <91u9g71js8cq4efpi...@4ax.com>,
> David Laville <dlav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:46:51 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> So what group of fundamentals says its okay to have your head in front
>> >> of the ball at impact?
>> >
>> >My god: you really aren't play acting, are you?
>>
>> This diversion answers my question how?
>
>I'm not explaining yet again, David. I've tried far harder to make you
>understand than you bother before declaring your golf students to be the
>problem and you still don't get it.
how is your head in front of the ball at impact a better fundamental
than Larry's head behind it?
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages