Toronto Golf Nuts - Greater Toronto Area Golf Forum  


Go Back   Toronto Golf Nuts - Greater Toronto Area Golf Forum > Golf Discussion Forum > Golf Instruction
Forgot Password? Join Us!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old Oct 16, 2013, 03:02 PM   #26
Cowboy
Tour Pro
 
Cowboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 18, 2010
Location: Milton, ON
Posts: 1,402
Default Re: Long game is more important than short game

Quote:
Originally Posted by The McCleery Crow View Post
An interesting article with stats to back it up.

"Danger Zone Play (shots from 175-225 yards)

What I uncovered was that Danger Zone Play has the strongest correlation to success on Tour than ANY other part of the game, including putting and driving effectiveness."


http://www.golfwrx.com/48333/the-bli...-tour-players/
You beat me to it. I was going to ref. that article.
__________________
Driver: Ping G25, TFC 189D-R
16.5* 4W: Ping G25 TFC 189F-R
20* 3H: Ping ANSER , TFC 800H-R
4-U: PING I20: CFS-R
Wedges: Vokey 54-11, 60-07
Putter: SC Sqaureback No. 1 33.5", 68* lie, 1* loft
Bag: TM TMX Stand Bag riding on a Clicgear 3.0
RCGA Factor: 10.4 (78 up to....)
Cowboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 16, 2013, 03:29 PM   #27
The McCleery Crow
Low Handicapper
 
The McCleery Crow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 23, 2011
Location: Toronto
Posts: 173
Default Re: Long game is more important than short game

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy View Post
You beat me to it. I was going to ref. that article.
The comments have a lot of good discussion. Is the bottom line that guy who can reach green from the danger zone will have two putts to make a score where as the guys that miss greens from the danger zone will have more up and downs to make. Over an entire season, I'd take the guy making two putts over someone making up and downs.
__________________
It's not the wand. It's the wizard.
The McCleery Crow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 16, 2013, 04:30 PM   #28
dlam
Low Handicapper
 
Join Date: Feb 8, 2011
Posts: 101
Default Re: Long game is more important than short game

While the stats may be relevant for the tour pros who are the best 125 players in the world All tour players must have an elite short game to make it to the show The average joe like me who is just trying to win their club championship is trying to get a better and sharper short game

Last edited by dlam; Oct 16, 2013 at 04:49 PM.
dlam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 16, 2013, 07:36 PM   #29
TourIQ
Tour Pro
 
TourIQ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 8, 2005
Location: Wingham, ON, Canada N0G 2W0
Posts: 9,699
Default Re: Long game is more important than short game

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickStarchuk View Post
Rich is a superb golf statistician.
My chart comes from Mark Broadie a professor at MIT who created the strokes gained stat.
Pretty soon Nick you will be posting Six Sigma articles
__________________
Adams Tech Driver / F11 Ti Metals / 9031 Hybrids / Ping WRX i20 Irons
Vokey CC-TVD Wedges / YES Natalie Putter / Leupold GX-4 Rangefinder
Personal Best: 79, hoping for another sub 80 before the Twilight Zone
TourIQ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 16, 2013, 10:39 PM   #30
NickStarchuk
Tour Pro
 
NickStarchuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 22, 2009
Posts: 2,535
Default Re: Long game is more important than short game

Unfortunately I think most have been biased by the common cliche of the short game that it will take something more than a genius at MIT with numbers from 10,000,000 over 8 years to convince.

Remember, this is at the tour level, and it does not include putting.

A great long game and good short game will beat a good long game and great short game all day.

This part is my opinion - I think amateurs would benefit even more from a long game than a short game. If we remove OB shots, hazards, and shots with terrible contact, the score will come down MUCH faster than working on short game.

If you haven't read Rich Hunt (richie3jack) Golf Synopsis, I recommend it Highly.
Www.3jack.blogspot.com
NickStarchuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 16, 2013, 10:40 PM   #31
NickStarchuk
Tour Pro
 
NickStarchuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 22, 2009
Posts: 2,535
Default Re: Long game is more important than short game

Quote:
Originally Posted by dlam View Post
?...All tour players must have an elite short game to make it to the show....
Compared to US? Agree

Compared to the Tour? Disagree
NickStarchuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2013, 02:54 AM   #32
Gridiron
Scratch Golfer
 
Gridiron's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 20, 2010
Location: Oakville
Posts: 491
Default Re: Long game is more important than short game

I think the long game has a greater effect and is where I would rather be the best rather than be the best at the short game. Here is why (bear with me):

- The average pro takes about 70 shots per round.
- 29 of those are putts leaving 41 shots.
- 13 of those have no chance of reaching the green (18 tee shots minus 4 par 3’s and a 1 reachable par 4) leaving 28 shots.
- 2 more shots are lay-ups on par 5’s (average pro “go’s for it” on 50% of par 5’s) leaving 26 shots.
- I now have 18 “approach shots” to get to the green. Maybe 17 depending where I lay-up my 2 par 5’s. (Presumably if I am really good from more than 100 yards I would not choose to leave myself with 75 yard approach shots, but maybe)
- That leaves me with 8 or 9 “other shots”. Presumably, short game shots and not penalty strokes. Maybe 1 or 2 of those are “putts” from the fringe that count as short game shots, not putts.

I have to take those 18 approach shots shots every game. Without fail. I would rather be really good at those 18 shots that I have to hit every single time out than 8 or 9 shots that I may or may not hit. If I am having a really good day and hit my 18 approach shots really well (say 17 greens instead of 12/13), then my short game shots are almost non-existent. If I am to survive as a pro, I have to go low with some consistency. The average pro scramble 55% or so. So I am going to get “up and down” 5 times or so from my “short shots”. But I can’t go low scrambling for par all the time. The only way to go low is to hit my approach shots on the green and close to the pin. That’s how I make birdie’s and eagles. And since I need to make 6-10 birdies to go low, I need a good long game.
Gridiron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2013, 03:54 AM   #33
NickStarchuk
Tour Pro
 
NickStarchuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 22, 2009
Posts: 2,535
Default Re: Long game is more important than short game

Nice analysis there.


The tour winners typically have under 5 shots per round under 100 yards, excluding putts.

They will have more tee shots than short shots (inside 100).

They will have more approach shots outside 100 than inside 100.

I heard a comment that Hogan had an average short game. Maybe our resident hogan expert has some insight...
NickStarchuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2013, 04:07 AM   #34
itsmemikeeey
High Handicapper
 
itsmemikeeey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 28, 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 25
Default Re: Long game is more important than short game

Personally, i'm a mid to high handicapper and i notice that my lowest rounds happen when my long game ball striking is hot. I could imagine how much lower i would shoot if i could stop leaving chips and pitches short. lol
itsmemikeeey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2013, 04:29 AM   #35
The McCleery Crow
Low Handicapper
 
The McCleery Crow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 23, 2011
Location: Toronto
Posts: 173
Default Re: Long game is more important than short game

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickStarchuk View Post

This part is my opinion - I think amateurs would benefit even more from a long game than a short game. If we remove OB shots, hazards, and shots with terrible contact, the score will come down MUCH faster than working on short game.
Another reason being that the amateur is probably shorter off the tee and finds himself in the danger zone >175yds more often, especially when trying to move back a tee. The more greens he/she can hit from that distance the better chance to score.

I'm sure some people would argue that hitting greens from >175 is a low percentage and therefore one must practice shots inside 100 yds to make up for their deficiencies at the long game.

But if you can hit long irons as accurately as short irons or wedges, you're taking a lot of stress off your short game.

As a high capper myself, I agree with you Nick about eliminating OB shots, hazards, and shots with terrible contact is the fastest way to lower scores. The number of times I've hit a "perfect" tee shot only to top or fat an approach shot into a green side water hazard is infinite. Ever play the Marshes in Ottawa? Most punishing course I've ever played.
__________________
It's not the wand. It's the wizard.

Last edited by The McCleery Crow; Oct 17, 2013 at 04:30 AM. Reason: grammar
The McCleery Crow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2013, 04:57 AM   #36
Golftime
Tour Pro
 
Join Date: Mar 22, 2007
Location: Fenwick & Oakville
Posts: 1,165
Default Re: Long game is more important than short game

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickStarchuk View Post
Unfortunately I think most have been biased by the common cliche of the short game that it will take something more than a genius at MIT with numbers from 10,000,000 over 8 years to convince.

Remember, this is at the tour level, and it does not include putting.

A great long game and good short game will beat a good long game and great short game all day.

This part is my opinion - I think amateurs would benefit even more from a long game than a short game. If we remove OB shots, hazards, and shots with terrible contact, the score will come down MUCH faster than working on short game.

If you haven't read Rich Hunt (richie3jack) Golf Synopsis, I recommend it Highly.
Www.3jack.blogspot.com
Agreed. My good scores come from a really good day with the short game that results in 29 to 31 putts. However it can only get me to a certain level. I played in a scramble event on Monday paired with two guys who compared to me are very long. We shot 4 under with no handicaps on a day when all the pins were set in extremely difficult positions. One putts were hard to make so we ended up with 29 putts with 2 chip ins. Our score was 10 shots better than my best round because of the length off the tee. On the other hand we did use my drives 6 out of 12 times because I was in the fairway. So if I could hit it longer off the tee and keep the rest of my game I could shave off a bunch of strokes. However as I get older that becomes more and more difficult. I guess that the simple solution is to play it forward.
__________________
Aim at nothing and you will hit it every time.
Golftime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2013, 05:20 AM   #37
tigerphan
Scratch Golfer
 
tigerphan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 23, 2008
Posts: 329
Default Re: Long game is more important than short game

After reading every comment and the article on the wrx, I went back and thought about all my low rounds. My short game in most rounds was mediocre at best.

Of all the good rounds I've had, and countless others I've seen. Not a single time I have participated and thought after the round "his short game was really good today". Its all ball striking.

If you can hit the green 9/10 times from 175-225 yards alone, hello pga tour.
__________________
Living the dream

Fitness fanatic, always willing to help other golf nuts with their fitness.
tigerphan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2013, 05:44 AM   #38
The Troll
Tour Pro
 
The Troll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 10, 2006
Location: Ministry of Sarcasm
Posts: 8,344
Default Re: Long game is more important than short game

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickStarchuk View Post
If we remove OB shots, hazards, and shots with terrible contact, the score will come down MUCH faster than working on short game.
Agreed, in my game poor shots cost 10 shots a round while, at best, a superior short game would save 4.

Quote:
If you haven't read Rich Hunt (richie3jack) Golf Synopsis, I recommend it Highly.
Www.3jack.blogspot.com
Richie is my main source.

FWIW, for amateurs he doesn't consider the danger zone to be most important....he considers off the tee to be most important.

That said, if I remember correctly, he feels the danger zone for amateurs is 150-200 and encourages amateurs to get better at this zone.
__________________
Trollie

Some days you're the pigeon....some days you're the statue.
The Troll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2013, 06:15 AM   #39
low fade
Club Pro
 
Join Date: Jun 14, 2010
Posts: 648
Default Re: Long game is more important than short game

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gridiron View Post
I think the long game has a greater effect and is where I would rather be the best rather than be the best at the short game. Here is why (bear with me):

- The average pro takes about 70 shots per round.
- 29 of those are putts leaving 41 shots.
- 13 of those have no chance of reaching the green (18 tee shots minus 4 par 3’s and a 1 reachable par 4) leaving 28 shots.
- 2 more shots are lay-ups on par 5’s (average pro “go’s for it” on 50% of par 5’s) leaving 26 shots.
- I now have 18 “approach shots” to get to the green. Maybe 17 depending where I lay-up my 2 par 5’s. (Presumably if I am really good from more than 100 yards I would not choose to leave myself with 75 yard approach shots, but maybe)
- That leaves me with 8 or 9 “other shots”. Presumably, short game shots and not penalty strokes. Maybe 1 or 2 of those are “putts” from the fringe that count as short game shots, not putts.

I have to take those 18 approach shots shots every game. Without fail. I would rather be really good at those 18 shots that I have to hit every single time out than 8 or 9 shots that I may or may not hit. If I am having a really good day and hit my 18 approach shots really well (say 17 greens instead of 12/13), then my short game shots are almost non-existent. If I am to survive as a pro, I have to go low with some consistency. The average pro scramble 55% or so. So I am going to get “up and down” 5 times or so from my “short shots”. But I can’t go low scrambling for par all the time. The only way to go low is to hit my approach shots on the green and close to the pin. That’s how I make birdie’s and eagles. And since I need to make 6-10 birdies to go low, I need a good long game.
I think your analysis is excellent.

Some additional thoughts: there seems to be a great variety of opinion about what the definition of short game is. Nick posted a chart that defines the long game as anything over 100 yds, and then the discussion seemed to turn towards 175-250 yds being the critical area to practice for pros.

Personally, i consider the short game to be anything from around 120 yds and in. But lets take the 175-250 criterion for long game, and take a pro who averages, say 300yds off the tee-- how often is he going to have a shot from 175-250 yds? Maybe 8 times a round max, depending on the course (certainly not anywhere near the 18 in your analysis above.)? And how often do pros hit the green, on average, from 175-250 yds? Im not sure-- I could look it up but I prefer to guess. Being an accountant, I'll use a conservative estimate-- 38%? So a pro hits the green from that range roughly 3 times out of 8 every round.

So lets get to whether that pro should spend the bulk of his time practicing from that range. Lets say he is looking to improve by 10% (this is an extremely immense improvement, beyond any scope of what is normally attained in any category. For instance, a 10% improvement in putting would see the worst putter on tour immediately become the best). Nevertheless, lets assume that practicing from 175-250 garners a 10% improvement in greens hit. This means he goes from 3 greens hit a round to 3.3 (every third round he will hit 1 additional green).

Now if the average GIR is 11, the average pro has 7 missed greens a round. Practicing his Long game doesn't even improve his GIR by a full shot a round-- he still has 6 up and downs to make (yes there are some assumptions here, such as not all missed greens are the result of missed approached shots, nevertheless...) If we factor in the other 10 shots that were not long game shots and assume that they were short game shots, this pro now has somewhere in the neighbourhood of 17 short game shots on which he can conceivably improve. A 10% improvement in these would contribute 1.7 shots improvement, or roughly 2 full shots every 3 rounds!

There are obviously a great many uncertainties and necessary assumptions involved in analyses such as mine, and clearly a pro who averages, say, 278 off the tee will have much different parameters. But no matter what way I look at it, I can't see even an extraordinary improvement of 10% in the 175-250 range reaping tremendous benefits compared to other areas. But I suppose it all depends on individual pro in question. Is Dustin Johnson, who might hit 10 wedges a round going to practice as much with his 4 and 5 iron as he does his wedge? Seems a little silly, wouldn't it?
low fade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2013, 08:33 AM   #40
Playthru
Tour Pro
 
Join Date: Mar 12, 2010
Location: Oakville
Posts: 1,679
Default Re: Long game is more important than short game

Correlation is not causation. Ability to hit the green from 175-225 yards is correlated with good performance on the tour. It may simply be the best predictor of good ball striking.
Playthru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2013, 09:00 AM   #41
tigerphan
Scratch Golfer
 
tigerphan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 23, 2008
Posts: 329
Default Re: Long game is more important than short game

Greg Chalmers was #1 in 2013 for strokes gained putting. Ended up 124th on money list, second last to keep card.

Here are some of his stats :
GIR from 200+ :166th
GIR from 175-200 : 97th
Approaches from 200-225 yards : 177th
Approaches from 225-250 yards: 152sd

Scrambling is 59.33% is ranked 63rd on tour

Greens in Regulation Percentage 61.64% for 167th

Ranked total #1 putter on tour.

---------------

Just proves ball striking is more important
__________________
Living the dream

Fitness fanatic, always willing to help other golf nuts with their fitness.
tigerphan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2013, 09:35 AM   #42
The Troll
Tour Pro
 
The Troll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 10, 2006
Location: Ministry of Sarcasm
Posts: 8,344
Default Re: Long game is more important than short game

The reality is the guys on tour are so good in the short game that it is hard to distance yourself from the pack by getting better.

From the "Danger Zone" there is a ton of room to distance yourself. Back at his peak, Tiger was gaining almost 2 shots a round on Par 5's and long Par 4's.

Amazingly, Jim Furyk carries a very good (Top 10) "Danger Zone" rating as does Graham Deleat.
__________________
Trollie

Some days you're the pigeon....some days you're the statue.
The Troll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2013, 10:02 AM   #43
low fade
Club Pro
 
Join Date: Jun 14, 2010
Posts: 648
Default Re: Long game is more important than short game

Quote:
Originally Posted by tigerphan View Post
Greg Chalmers was #1 in 2013 for strokes gained putting. Ended up 124th on money list, second last to keep card.

Here are some of his stats :
GIR from 200+ :166th
GIR from 175-200 : 97th
Approaches from 200-225 yards : 177th
Approaches from 225-250 yards: 152sd

Scrambling is 59.33% is ranked 63rd on tour

Greens in Regulation Percentage 61.64% for 167th

Ranked total #1 putter on tour.

---------------

Just proves ball striking is more important
Here then is the problem when stats are invoked to try to explain results that have far too many variables to be accounted for by simple analysis. Referencing Nick's chart: Tiger is #1 in long game and #1 in putting, and ranked #1 overall. Which of long game and putting is "more important" to being ranked #1 overall?

As the saying goes, you can dissect a cat, but all you get in the end is an unworking cat. In this case, Greg Chalmers has poor long game stats and supreme putting stats. But what does that tell us? If the long game matters "more" than putting, could he have finished way down the list in putting and still finished as high on the money list? Seems unlikely. So, in other words, putting mattered a great deal to Greg Chalmers.

Referencing Nick's chart, Luke Donald has inferior long game stats and good putting stats, and makes the top 10 list. Vijay has supreme Long game stats and terrible putting stats and makes the top 10 list. Multiple ways to skin a cat, no?

I think the concept here is "It all depends." Should you practice your long game more if you're a pro? It all depends. If you're Greg Chalmers, probably (although there's no telling if doing so will serve to be a detriment to his putting).If you're Vijay Singh, already second in that stats category but 915th in putting, probably not.
low fade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2013, 11:02 AM   #44
NickStarchuk
Tour Pro
 
NickStarchuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 22, 2009
Posts: 2,535
Default Re: Long game is more important than short game

Luke Donald was 65 in long game, far from inferior. Look closer at his stats in other areas too.

There is a lot of mention in PRACTICING the short game. What if that's an OLD school way of making the long game ultimately better? It's cliche and I challenge you to sit back and do the math and ask your self which Super Pill do you want... Wedging around the green or hitting long irons & tee shots where you look?

If you want to prioritize your training based on what's important, these are the areas.
NickStarchuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2013, 11:07 AM   #45
P25
Toronto Ryder Cup Member
 
P25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 3, 2008
Location: Brooklin
Posts: 14,427
Default Re: Long game is more important than short game

I've always maintained that hitting more GIR will have a more dramatic effect on everyone's score than any other area. That plays into being better off the tee and from the fairway - long game. I'll take a better long game all day long. Hoping to improve for next season...this year was a bit of a bust for me. First year of no progress in a long time.
P25 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2013, 05:17 PM   #46
ARL67
Club Pro
 
ARL67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 11, 2009
Location: Waterloo, ON
Posts: 787
Default Re: Long game is more important than short game

I'll take a better long game any day.
Sucking off the tee is extremely demoralizing, and puts so much pressure on the entire rest of ones game & psyche. We go and pull clubs to make hero recovery shots, often leading to further disaster. Then great reliance on a the wedges, and putting, in hopes of saving par, or keeping the bogey to a single.

For me, eliminating in-game stress makes the game seem like a walk in the park.
Stressing over constant crappy driver shots gets one tense & forced.

I have also come to realize that my 140-80 yard ( PW-Gap-Sand-Lob ) approach shots have pretty crappy proximity to pin, leaving me with lengthy putts. Fortunately my long lag putting is very good, usually getting me to within 2-3ft. I tell you, not having to grind of 4-6 footers to save par is a massive relief on the brain. That said, I need to work on my 140-80 yd shots as I do not give myself enough realistic birdie attempts.

- Andy
__________________
WITB:
Titleist 913D2 7.5* with Matrix 6M3 Stiff
Titleist 913H 17* with Diamana S+ 82 Stiff
Titleist 913H 21* with Diamana S+ 82 Stiff
Mizuno MP-4 -> 5-PW with KBS Tour Stiff
Nike VR Pro 50/54/60 with S400
TM Ghost Spider 33" SuperStroke Slim 3.0
Srixon Z-Star XV yellow or TM Black LDP
ARL67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2013, 06:39 PM   #47
The McCleery Crow
Low Handicapper
 
The McCleery Crow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 23, 2011
Location: Toronto
Posts: 173
Default Re: Long game is more important than short game

Seems like this debate has been raging for over a century.
__________________
It's not the wand. It's the wizard.
The McCleery Crow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2013, 04:22 AM   #48
Lob wedge
Club Pro
 
Join Date: Nov 28, 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 600
Default Re: Long game is more important than short game

Amateurs...As long as we have jobs, families etc we arent going to hit any more greens in reg so I would suggest short game is the only way to lower scores. As for Pros I would think that short game can prop up a weak ball striking day. Interesting topic.
Lob wedge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2013, 03:48 PM   #49
Cowboy
Tour Pro
 
Cowboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 18, 2010
Location: Milton, ON
Posts: 1,402
Default Re: Long game is more important than short game

Quote:
Originally Posted by itsmemikeeey View Post
Personally, i'm a mid to high handicapper and i notice that my lowest rounds happen when my long game ball striking is hot. I could imagine how much lower i would shoot if i could stop leaving chips and pitches short. lol
Broke 80 for the first and only time by hitting greens. Didn't make a single up and down all day. I missed the green, I made bogey or worse. Ball-striking and putting made that 78, not short game.
__________________
Driver: Ping G25, TFC 189D-R
16.5* 4W: Ping G25 TFC 189F-R
20* 3H: Ping ANSER , TFC 800H-R
4-U: PING I20: CFS-R
Wedges: Vokey 54-11, 60-07
Putter: SC Sqaureback No. 1 33.5", 68* lie, 1* loft
Bag: TM TMX Stand Bag riding on a Clicgear 3.0
RCGA Factor: 10.4 (78 up to....)
Cowboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2013, 04:52 PM   #50
low fade
Club Pro
 
Join Date: Jun 14, 2010
Posts: 648
Default Re: Long game is more important than short game

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy View Post
Broke 80 for the first and only time by hitting greens. Didn't make a single up and down all day. I missed the green, I made bogey or worse. Ball-striking and putting made that 78, not short game.
So how good would you have been if you had a short game?
low fade is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Terms of Service / Privacy