My goal is to one day be as good as Kim Jong Il

Since I was probably a bit too serious yesterday, I will change gears and go with this today.


21 Responses to “ “My goal is to one day be as good as Kim Jong Il”

  1. Calvin says:

    Bwahhahahahaha. It is a rare talent to be able to make yourself look ridiculous to the entire world on a regular basis and at the same time be scary as hell.

  2. woody says:

    “But then, along came Kim Jong-il and one incredible day in 1994, when the Dear Leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea picked up a golf club for the very first time, and — as witnessed by 17 security guards and reported by the state news agency — shot a smooth 38-under-par round of 34, including 11 holes-in-one. And never again played the game….His favourite all-time flick was Caddyshack.”

    This proves what I’ve always thought…that you can learn a lot by watching somebody good. And, what if he’d watched KJ Choi instead of Danny Noonan?

    I used to play with somebody who could really hit for distance. I wanted to ask him how he did it, but I didn’t, for two reasons: 1) It would have been rude, and might have made him ruin his game by getting too analytical, and 2) he probably didn’t know.

    I could never figure it out…because I was watching his arms…bwahhahahahaha.

  3. rojoass says:

    I believe it’s true.
    How could anyone never dump & not shoot 38 under ?

  4. cdnmike says:

    Golf Digest did a story about North Korea a few years ago. They actually went into the North and played the only course and were told this story. They also said that Kim Jong Il bowled once in his life as well…. of course, a perfect game.

    You have to wonder if people there actually believe that or know it isn’t true but don’t dare disagree.

    North Korea takes a lot of heat but IMO they are nothing compared to the agregious acts going on in China. Does anyone know of the company Fox Conn in China? Employees stay 8 to a room at the company, very long work day, $0.31/hour pay…. all so we can get our electronics. And you wonder why democratic countries can’t compete!?!?

    But there is very little done about it… why??….. China owns the United States. They hold so much of the debt that they can influence decision making of the U.S. politicians.

    Sorry… got off on a rant here. I feel like rojo-ass

  5. Greg says:

    Wow. I never made more than three aces in a round.

  6. Vince says:

    I’m very sorry, but you can never be so good as Kim Jung Il, since he made that record in his first play ever. :-)
    Hope you can be that good in your next life…

  7. Wally says:

    My Louisville Golf driver was made in the good old U. A.. It may not go as far the chinese made junk out there but , I get 200 plus American yards

    • cdnmike says:

      That’s great Wally, but the few people choosing to buy American will, unfortunately, do nothing. Most people will buy what they want or what is the best deal regardless of where it is made. The only real fix is to impose sanctions on China so they have to follow the same worker laws that the rest of the industrialized world does.

      Of course, that won’t happen as long as China owns the States.

      • cdnmike says:

        Holy crap! I just looked up Louisville driver. Wally, do you seriously play with a persimmion? Please tell me you’re joking, or you do it as a novelty for a round or two.

      • Shallowface says:

        There’s a growing interest in “retro golf,” mostly among those of us who are fed up with the busted promises of technology and clubs that look like they were designed by Mattel.

        There are tournaments where the participants use hickory shafted equipment (both antique and new), and there is a growing interest in tournaments where the players can’t use anything made after a certain date, say 1970 for example.

        While not necessarily the case for drivers, wooden fairway woods are not at all inferior to today’s metal offerings. The weight distribution often times is superior with the wooden woods.

      • cdnmike says:

        Really!?! Well, I learned something new today. I didn’t know about this retro golf thing. I can see that the old fairway woods would be similar to the new ones but I can’t imagine the drivers are even close.

        You don’t use a featherie in these tournaments, do you?

      • Shallowface says:

        The drivers of yesteryear are two to three inches shorter than today’s clubs, so that’s the biggest reason today’s clubs have a greater distance potential (notice I say potential, because that added length has to be squarely applied, which is more difficult with the longer shaft).

        The hickory tournaments are contested with a gutta percha ball that is being made today just for the purpose.

        Most of the guys using persimmon opt for one of the low compression soft modern balls so as to reduce the chance of damaging the club. Some guys even hunt down old wound balata balls on Ebay, but I’d have to believe that most of those would be really dead at this point.

        Monte often mentions There’s a forum over there called Classic Golf and Golfers, and a sub-forum called Hickory, Persimmon and Classic Clubs. Lots of great pictures of classic equipment. Great people, too!

  8. Brian says:

    Sorry Wally, but that is an uninformed view and only accounts for a small amount of the many factors affecting world trade. Your analysis would make sense in your particular example but it falls short of even an introductory level university course discussing world trade.

    • Brian says:

      edit: I was referring to cdnmike’s comment, not wally’s.

      • cdnmike says:

        Well if you are referring to my comment you are going to have to say more than that. Especially when you are calling me ignorant. Let’s hear your expert analysis.

        Not that it matters, because you don’t have to go to University to have an educated opinion, but my education goes far beyond University (business) completion.

      • Brian says:

        I often come off as brash online and it wasn’t my intention to insult, although by re-reading my comment I understand it could easily be interpreted that way.

        My point was that when a country such as the United States or Canada imports electronics, they benefit in a variety of other ways (than price). They do not have to utilize the resources within their country to produce the goods and thus they are able to allocate their limited resources to manufacturing goods which they have a larger competitive advantage. In the specific case of electronics there are tonnes of e-waste produced that contain a plethora of extremely toxic chemicals which are destroying many cities in China/Asia in general.

        I don’t mind getting into a discussion but those are two large factors that have to be considered (the first one to a larger degree). My frustration comes from people (not saying you particularly) and organizations that create simplified models of world trade and use the analysis as propaganda to support their cause.

      • cdnmike says:

        Well it’s pretty tough to get into all of the facets of work trade on a golf forum. I will say this…

        I know the argument you are making but I don’t think it holds up. The basis of your argument is that the manufacturing sector is not needed in North America anymore and that we can be better focused on technology and other advancements (medical, etc). I do not believe this to be true. As long as you have a country such as China (there are others but China is the largest) exploiting their workforce and devaluing their currency in order to gain a huge advantage in their exports you will not have a competative balance. The flow of money (trade surplus) continues to go to China. They use some of this surplus to purchase U.S. deficit and thus influence policy.

        Without the base of manufacturing you cannot have the other, higher level economic drivers (tech, medical, etc) as your main source of GDP. I think many years down the road the higer level industries will be able to support a country as large as the United States as the main component of GDP, but we aren’t there yet.

      • cdnmike says:

        edit: world trade…. not work trade

      • Brian says:

        Not that the manufacturing sector is not needed, just that it has evolved. Take the PC as an example: a larger percentage of important new innovations (electronic, medical etc.) are developed in the United States. When PC’s initially became mass produced, the United Sates was a net exporter. Over time as the technology matured they became and are currently a net importer. The firms within the country are choosing direct investment in Asia as a means to better utilize their resources in their home country to develop other technologies and exploit the vast amount of highly skilled and most creative thinking engineers in the United Sates. Shifting low skilled labor jobs to the United States would decrease profit margins which in turn would result in increased price and reduced budget for R&D which would in turn stifle innovation.

      • cdnmike says:

        We’ll have to agree to disagree.

        I am familiar with that argument but I believe it puts too much emphasis on the “highly skilled” jobs. The argument you are making basically states that the U.S. doesn’t need the lower skilled labor jobs and I don’t agree with that. I think the U.S. absolutely needs those jobs. I actually believe that in order to grow the jobs that you are talking about (Higher level) you need the lesser skilled jobs as a base.

        1975 was the last time the U.S. has had a trade surplus. The trade deficits of the 2000s are the worst in history; anywhere from 4% to 6% of GDP. That is not good.

        You can have the final comment… that’s all I have.

  9. Brian says:

    I don’t think there is a right answer, and our philosophies obviously differ. At least we have golf and nationality in common :)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *