First Look at Old Guns (morphing later into St. Jude Semi Live Blog)

7:20 pm Update:  Just read a Daily Telegraph article that has this line about Tiger Woods’s recent 85: “A score that doesn’t win the Wednesday chook run at Dimboola Public.

No idea what it means, but it’s funny!

6:00 pm Update:  Huge win for Fabian Gomez. A life-changing win.  He is 36 years old, and this is his third time to make it to the PGA Tour.  I’m not sure of his history of playing majors, but he’ll be at Augusta next spring!

  • 2011: PGA Tour
  • 2012: web.com
  • 2013: PGA Tour
  • 2014: web.com
  • 2015: PGA Tour
  • 2016 and 2017:  PGA Tour!!!

Congrats to Inbee Park.  I was for S.Y. Kim today, but it’s great to Inbee picking up another major.

12:20 pm: Eye on the Women:  I am rooting for S. Y. Kim today.  After watching her dramatic prime time win at the Swinging Skirts, I became a huge fan.  Sorry, Mister Fowler, but I think your drama at the Players was trumped by that finish of S. Y. Kim.  Now, if you had aced No. 17…

More from that same Damron article:

It’s doubtful that history will consider him the best golfer of all time, but I can say with absolute certainty that at his best, no one played golf as well as Tiger. Not even close. He came as close to golfing perfection that week as anyone else ever has. If you don’t believe me, all you need to do is watch the highlights from the 2000 U.S. Open, and my case is closed.

If you are basing your case on the Rocki Ishii-ball 2000 US Open, your case is going to be thrown out of court.  Oh, well, it’s probably considered daring to suggest Woods “probably” won’t be considered best of all time.

11:00 am Update: More Golf Media Idiocy:  Is it required to be brainless to become a mainstream golf reporter?  Robert Damron for Fox Sports wrote this:

Brandel Chamblee said Tiger has brought this on himself and that he’s to blame for destroying his game by changing his swing too many times. As another golfer who saw Tiger at his best, I totally agree. I’ll never understand why he changed his game after playing better than anyone in history

(1) He played “better than anyone in history” thanks to having the Rock Ishii ball a year earlier than everyone else, and Tiger Woods well knew that at the time.

(2) You’ll never understand?  Here, let’s see if these words from Tiger Woods himself help:

In December 2002, after playing in pain for much of the season, Woods underwent knee surgery in Utah to remove fluid and another cyst. This time during the operation, doctors noticed that Woods’ anterior cruciate ligament was significantly stretched. After being informed of the discovery, Woods told friends in the post-operating room that he had to change his swing. “I really had no choice,” he says today.

So: He really had no choice, due to the injury and operation.  There ya go, Mr. Damron, now you understand!  To quote Bubba, You’re welcome!

10:45 am Update: Dueling Sabbaticals:  From the New York Daily News.  Contrast this to the way Woods’s sabbatical was reported.  Recall that in both cases, the players’ management and the PGA Tour said there was no suspension:

It’s similar with the ultra-talented Dustin Johnson. His leave of absence, allegedly for drug rehab though repeatedly denied by himself and the PGA Tour, didn’t adversely affect his relationship with the galleries when he won Doral.

For Woods, that would have been reported simply as, “His self-imposed leave of absence didn’t adversely affect…”

7:30 am: OLD GUNS:  I’m reading Shane Ryan’s brand new book, “Slaying the Tiger,” and one theme that runs throughout the book is how little access golf reporters have to the players.  That was surprising to me.  Even reporters for the biggest sports outlets find it difficult to impossible to get interviews.

I knew Tiger Woods was isolated from the world, and that reporters had little access to him — thus, reports from Tim Rosaforte like “a member at Isleworth said Woods played 27 holes and had nine birdies” — but I always assumed Rosaforte or Kelly Tilghman or Steve DiMeglio or any of the national writers could talk to most other players any time they wanted as long as they didn’t interfere with their preparation.  I would have thought a Keegan Bradley, say, and his management team would have been elated for him to get any kind of additional media attention.

I can see the logic from the standpoint of a known “star”; his management doesn’t want the golfer to say anything that would undo an elaborate PR push to define the golfer favorably in the public eye.  But most players, especially as we leave the All Tiger All The Time era, don’t have much of a public persona at all.

A few thoughts have occurred to me.  If these reporters have so little access to the players, whey do they waste their rare opportunities by asking such lame questions at press conferences?  Also, many players have quite small turnouts at press conferences.  If you are not going to go to a Henrik Stenson press conference, why should he bother with giving you a one-on-one interview?

Shane Ryan, as a “little guy,” struggled mightily to get access to players.  Unlike many reporters, he made a point of going to press conferences.  He was still regularly rebuked by players when he sought short interviews.

Anyway, the point is that today’s golf reporters have surprisingly little access to players.  With that in mind, consider this from Ryan’s book, from an excellent chapter which discusses “needle moving”:

It doesn’t take a genius to see how this becomes a vicious cycle — if you tell casual fans only about Tiger, Rory, and Phil, they’ll only know — and care — about Tiger, Rory, and Phil.

He then writes about why this happens.  (He limits his definition of “mainstream outlets” to general sports media — ESPN and the like — but the mainstream golf outlets do the same thing.)  He says the advertisers must be placated, so the Nielsen television ratings and pageview metrics must be kept up, so the editors tell the writers to cover “needle movers.”  (So much for separation of church and state…)  He wraps it up with this:

Jobs are at stake, and making an ethical stand is a poor career move.  More than ever before, writers can be replaced, but traffic cannot.

This is where the Old Guns come in.  By Old Guns, I mean older people, who are retired or close to it, whose chase for the Almighty Dollar is behind them.  They aren’t afraid of losing a job.  They don’t want one!   Or, at least, they don’t want — and certainly don’t need — a job as a sports reporter.  (The Old Guns idea would apply to areas outside of sports, too.)

Here’s what I’m getting at:

  1. “Real” golf reporters don’t have much access to the golfers they cover; by and large, they get their information from the same places we do.  Press conferences, tweets, television interviews, and the occasional player interviews that show up from time to time in print media.  They can no more pick up the phone and call Jason Dufner or Matt Kuchar for a quick comment than you or I can.  Spieth and Rory?  Forget about it.
  2. Everything they write goes through the filters of Keep My Job, Please My Boss, and Make Advertisers Happy.

Here’s my point:  We “Old Guns” — and you don’t really have to be old to be an Old Gun — are not dependent on our golf commentary to put food on our tables.  Therefore, advertisers, bosses, and paychecks don’t control our writing.  We are able to write the truth about any topic we desire; we don’t care if Nike or TaylorMade likes it.  We don’t fool ourselves that one day a Hunter Mahan or Patrick Reed will sit down for a one-on-one interview if only we toe the line.  (The “real golf reporters” won’t get the interviews, either, unless the golfer is plugging something and finds the reporter useful in that endeavor.)

To sum up, and this is a topic I’ve just started thinking about, those of us who write serious commentary at golf websites (which often gets deleted by those concerned with advertisers, bosses, and paychecks) or write free WordPress blog entries from 286 DOS PCs in our basements have an advantage over the “real golf writers.”

We have no restraints due to financial considerations; we don’t have to sing for our supper.  And we have damn near the same access to the players as any of the writers being paid to cover golf.

So, now and in the future, can’t “hobbyist” sportswriters be expected to provide most of the meaningful journalism?  The big commercial outlets have become extensions of the marketing departments of their advertisers and the PR machine of the athletes they cover.  The mainstream outlets have been reduced to serving up ever more sizzle — and ever less steak — in an attempt to get the LCD to buy their advertisers’ products.

[Guys like Shane Ryan, for whom I do have admiration, are trying to keep a journalistic separation of church and state, I suppose, but as long as they are writing for money, they are at a huge disadvantage to the Old Guns.  Consider someone like Geoff Shackelford.  From what I understand, he used to be something of a rebel, but now that he does his weekly bit on Golf Channel, his views are indistinguishable from those of the Tilghmans and Hacks and Rymers.]

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to First Look at Old Guns (morphing later into St. Jude Semi Live Blog)

  1. Sports-realist2 says:

    Corporatism and PC are SLOWLY removing are freedom of speech…..PC used to never be an issue(watch some of those 70’s celebrity roasts)…Then one day, congress decided to allow corporations to have MORE access to the govt…..Then one day the courts decided that ‘hate speech’ should be instituted….These few things are slowly RUINING freedom of speech in America and the world(not an exaggeration)….
    Corporations are buying up EVERYTHING, killing small business, and trying to silence the INDEPENDENT thinker(even if they are the majority opinion)……
    The golf channel is perhaps the MOST obvious example of this type of broadcasting, along with ESPN…..I can’t stand either network, and they are now PUSHING moral/immoral agendas, instead of doing honest sports coverage…..

    • lannyh says:

      I’ve noticed 1970’s sitcoms also often have jokes and storylines that would be prohibited today. Their topics were and remain valid and true, but they had gray area in them, and that’s a no-no these days. Now, there’s only one acceptable way to look at an issue, and any other way is prohibited — even to voice as a joke. So what if all realism is sacrificed.

  2. JoseyWales says:

    Shackelford is the best example of running scared…he now is a “Contributing Writer to Golf Digest and Golf Channel”…two of the worst mainstream suck-ups…everything you read at Golf Digest is bought and paid for by the big golf equipment mfgs. and NIKE, ROLEX, PGA Tour, etc….Golf Digest has been on the take for years…all of their “Top 100” lists are bought and paid for…GD is a sham. Golf Channel is just as bad…a mouthpiece, sock puppet and pimp for Tiger Woods for 20 years. Neither one of these media jokes care a thing about golf…only about making money and keeping their jobs….trembling in fear, paranoia and insecurity…feeding the cattle. There is zero journalism…it’s all fluff and hype…and Shackelford is right in there with the pimpmasters.

    • lannyh says:

      Yes. I was thinking as I typed it that Shane Ryan’s quote about Tiger, Rory, and Phil was a nod to Dwyre’s “feeding the cattle.”

      I’m a hardcore capitalist, so don’t get me wrong, but there are definitely things in society that become very distorted by the profit motive. I have not read the book, but Ralph Nader wrote a book entitled, “Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us.” I think his point is that only those who have climbed the mountain of financial success can see the big picture. (This is far from original, but I think most of those who push for fairness and equality do so because they have a financial incentive. They are no different from a widget-maker seeking to increase profits.)

      Anyway, I think golf journalism is one of the things that has gotten distorted by too great a focus on profit. Similar to the financial crisis of 2008, we are suffering a golf journalism crisis. Instead of idiotic bad loans, we got idiotic bad reporting.

  3. Kris says:

    Hobbyist sports writers are already providing meaningful journalism. Look at what’s happened with No Laying Up. It went from a group of friends shooting the shit on twitter to a golf website that has quite the large following. Billy Horschel wears their T shirts and says “I wouldn’t lay up if there wasn’t a tree there” when he knows there’s a camera on him. They got a lengthy interview with Patrick Rodgers. They interact with golfers on twitter. They routinely have podcasts with actual members of the golf media. It reminds me of the The Daily Show and The Colbert Report at the height of their powers about 10 years ago. You have to follow the real news to know what they’re talking about, but they provide a less tainted place to hear and talk about current events that matter to you.

  4. JoseyWales says:

    “Anyway, the point is that today’s golf reporters have surprisingly little access to players.”
    That statement didn’t surprise me…mainly because there are so many golf media hacks that are looking to blind-side, ambush or make fun of a player in order to get readers, viewers, clickers, etc…it’s no wonder players are gun shy. Woods gets all kinds of flack for snubbing the press, but in most case, they brought it all on themselves. To make my point, all I need to do is replay the offensive, disgusting “interview” hatchet job Kelly Tilghman did on Matt Every. I watched in in person and was revolted. Or the backstab attack Rich Lerner did on harmeless, innocent, 17 year old Tad Fujikawa over Tad’s father in trouble with the law. Both incidents sickened me…. and soured me on Golf Channel with their lack of professionalism and decency. The golf media is ripe with no-talent wannabes who have zero regard for honesty, only the cheap headline that will gain them “readers”. I am not surprised players try to avoid them. Just watch a few of these so-called “player interviews” conducted by the “golf media”…pathetic.

  5. Jaybird says:

    I forget where I saw/read it, but it goes along the lines of what a tour player said some what recently (and others have eluded to along the way). Players don’t want to talk to the media in large part becuase of a fear of saying “the wrong thing”. If they did it would/could effect them in the endorsement department and for the bigger stars, that’s significant revenue.

    • JoseyWales says:

      well sure…and the media will do everything they can to lure and bait a player into “saying the wrong thing”…they live for that stuff…and they would gleefully take credit for “bringing a player down” (of course, they would write it up so it looked entirely like the player was “guilty”). The worst pervaders of the PC culture is the media…bar none. They did everything in their power to make Vijay Singh look like a “bad guy”…and they succeeded.

  6. FunnyGuy says:

    The amount of credit you give to the Rock Ishii ball is comical. “Tiger had a ball no one else had, that’s why he hit it 30 yards by everyone and beat everyone by 15 strokes”.

    Common rule of thumb is every MPH of swing speed results in 3 more yards so the fact that Tiger’s swing speed was 10+ MPH faster than the average had nothing to do with his distance advantage.

    And that super wonderful solid core technology, which was around in 1995, clearly aided his ability to make practically ever putt he looked at.

    Yep, Tiger got no skill, it’s on the ball. It’s all in the ball.

    • lannyh says:

      Oh, brother. Are you saying the solid-core ball in 1995 was the ball Rock Ishii invented in 2000? The TRANSFORMATIONAL ball as he called it. The one every Tour pro converted to by 2002?

      No one said Woods had “no skill.” You are being silly. Woods had skill AND a huge equipment advantage in 2000 when he was so “dominant.”

  7. Realist says:

    Super ball or not Tiger is washed up. Move on please. There are far more interesting players to watch than this. Get over Tiger already. Please. It has become comical to watch him lose his Heiny on TV. “Second Sucks”. How bad does last place suck ? The arrogance has caught up to him and he doesn’t fit the “messiah” persona that his father gave him. Anyone who thinks ” a few more reps” are going to cure the ills is dilusional as he is. I will enjoy watching the U.S. Open not for Tiger, rather for the competition of golf. As it should be. I’m tired of having my “heroes ” of golf chosen for me by the media. If he makes the cut, I will be surprised with the length of the rough. Which he will be in a lot !

    • FunnyGuy says:

      I don’t disagree. I’m just saying that this super ball as Lanny calls it did not, could not, provide the level of advantage he makes it out to be.

      • Sports-realist2 says:

        The entire tour now plays with these style balls, as the wound balls are a thing of the past…..Now by your logic,half of the tour should still be using the wound balls, since, as you say, they don’t give a high ‘level’ of advantage……BUT, since the wound ball is basically obsolete in the PGA from ONLY 15 years ago, that would go against what you feel isn’t a huge advantage…….
        All the tiger proofing was REALLY the golf ball AND golf equipment changes, which made 300 plus drives commonplace for alot more tour players……The ball change was probably one of the biggest equipment adjustments in golf since they went from real wooden headed clubs to steel headed golf clubs…..Ofcourse, you would probably say that the ‘wooden clubs’ vs the ‘metal headed clubs’ don’t really give you the “level” of advantage, so you probably would think alot of PGA players should STILL be using the wooden clubs….

      • FunnyGuy says:

        Technology is always improving so the point is not that this ball wasn’t better. The point is the ball was not so much better that it was the single factor for how well TW played.

        Put another way, if you had a time machine and could go back and make TW play with a wound ball, he would have still won in dominating fashion….because he was playing that much better than everyone else.

      • lannyh says:

        “The point is the ball was not so much better that it was the single factor for how well TW played.”

        Dude, no one said that. I played plenty of 100+ rounds with the Pro V1 (the Titleist version of the Rocki Ishii transformational ball). But, for pros, the ball added some ten yards of distance. Between the longer drives and longer approach flights, you are talking an 8-iron vs a 6-iron. The more loft the easier to stop the ball on the green.

        No one is saying Woods couldn’t break par without the Rock Ishii ball. The point is that he had a remarkable equipment advantage in 2000, the year he was “so dominant.”

      • FunnyGuy says:

        To use your terminology, my point is it wasn’t a “remarkable” advantage. It was barely a factor at all because his technique was so good.

      • lannyh says:

        Barely a factor at all? Come on. That’s illogical. Every golfer on Tour converted to the ball within two years, and the average driving stats went up something like 15 yards. It’s easy to look those numbers up.

      • FunnyGuy says:

        From 1997-2002 Tiger’s driving distance average fell between 293 and 298. So much for a super ball.

      • lannyh says:

        Is your contention that the Rocki Ishii transformational ball that all Tour players converted to did not give additional distance? You are wasting my time. That is not a matter of debate; that is fact, pure and simple.

  8. Sports-realist2 says:

    This is starting to sound like the ‘steroid’ argument though….You know the argument that says: “well, steroids didn’t really help players that much”…..OR some will say “well Barry Bonds, Mark Mcqwire, and Sammy Sosa would have still hit alot of home runs without steroids, so it really didn’t matter that much”….ect……..When you start to minimize ANY advantage as being ho-hum, or not really the difference, then WHY did these players/athletes do it? Because it was a SUBSTANTIAL edge….

    We don’t know FOR SURE, how much of an impact this had on Woods golf game during that year or two…Sure we can guess, and downplay it, but again, this is like saying Mark Mcqwire would have still hit 70 home runs without roids, JUST because he was that good(ofcourse we now know–he wasn’t)…….We also don’t know if he was taking ped’s for sure(although considering his Arod connections, I would think it likely)……
    Just like now, PGA and other pro athletes are taking adderalll(Including Woods I believe) for concentration purposes….It’s for ADD patients, but some agent somewhere found out it’s IMPROVES or ENHANCES performance for athletes/students ect……..Now how BIG of an advantage is this? The one golfer(Lanny had pointed it out a few weeks ago) had the round of his life using it….Ofcourse, we could say that’s coincidence, or we could say the drug gave him a legitimate EDGE….What would he have shot WITHOUT the adderall? maybe that round of his life would have been just an average round….we just don’t know for sure….

    • FunnyGuy says:

      The thing about that is you get into legal versus illegal. PED’s/steroids are illegal. The “super ball” that didn’t actually significantly increase his driving distance was USGA conforming. Anyone with an ounce of sense would determine that a USGA conforming golf ball would not give a huge advantage. Otherwise the USGA would determine it non-conforming. And once again, as I mentioned, during the 5 year window from ’97 to ’02, which includes ’00, Tiger’s driving distance average fell within 5 yards.

      • lannyh says:

        “Anyone with an ounce of sense would determine that a USGA conforming golf ball would not give a huge advantage. Otherwise the USGA would determine it non-conforming.”

        Come on, you are just being silly now. Do you think that the equipment now isn’t a huge advantage over what it was in, say, 1975?

        You are floundering now, grasping at every straw in an attempt to cling to the narrative of a “dominant” Woods in 2000.

    • lannyh says:

      Yeah, in this case every pro went to the new ball! Quickly!

      • FunnyGuy says:

        Pro’s go to the latest and greatest damn near every year. That doesn’t mean it’s significantly better. It’s just the newest thing that the manufacturer’s are pumping and that’s why they get the people on TV to play it.

        The biggest jump TW had in driving distance was 2004 to 2005 where his average went from 301 to 316. But that wasn’t 2000.

      • lannyh says:

        Woods went from 293 in 1999 to 298 in 2000, which you didn’t want to mention. And there are many, many reasons for variation in such stats. Like, oh, I don’t know, hitting less than driver off the tee!

        You can try to avoid reality until the cows come home but you are eventually going to have to accept that the Rock Ishii ball (and Pro V1) were transformational balls that changed the game, and that Woods was using one a year before everyone else. It’s fact. It’s not something that will change because of some “oh, yeah? well…” cherry-picked stats. Read Geoff Shackelford’s book, “The Future of Golf.” He discusses it in great detail.

      • FunnyGuy says:

        Yeah, the Pro V1 was so transformational that while I used it I never shot a score better than I did with a found Top Flight Strata.

        I’m done. Stupidity always win so congrats.

      • Ken says:

        Your statement about your experience with the “found Top Flite Strata” is meaningless. For 95% of players, the ball makes no difference. You’ll shoot the same score with a Pro-V1 or a Top-Flite XL.

        For pros and low-handicappers, the ball makes a huge difference. Saying that Woods gained “only” 5-10 yards (straight yards) and that it makes no difference is nuts. He gained yards on every shot. Longer drives, thus shorter shots hit with more lofted clubs after. That is a huge advantage.

    • Sports-realist2 says:

      Oh cmon now funnyguy…We are allowed to disagree/debate/form gangs and fight each other in alleys…..wait, what….

  9. FunnyGuy says:

    There is this misperception that the newer golf balls offer some huge distance advantage. While it offers some, it’s relatively small. No, the real advantage the every changing, new balls offer is more spin around the greens while offering less side spin off the driver/irons.

    I’ve proven that between ’97 and ’03 Tiger’s driver distance average never varied by more than 5-10 yards; hardly a huge gain. What it may have done is provided better touch around the greens. I can get on board with that type of a noticeable advantage; but not a distance advantage based on numbers provided by Pgatour.com stats.

    • lannyh says:

      Woods often his 3-wood on those driving distance holes. Can you not understand that? You are using a meaningless stat. You can measure the ball’s performance, and you can look at the Tour average. The ball made a HUGE difference in distance. That’s fact. You are too emotionally caught up in the “dominant 2000 Tiger” narrative to accept the facts.

      This is not opinion. It’s obvious fact. If you can’t accept that, I’m sorry, but it’s not up to me to help you through this difficult time.

    • lannyh says:

      Scroll down to page 9 of this report and look at the chart. I’m sorry, but there is a dramatic increase in distance as players switched to the Rocki Ishii engineered ball. Look at the LPGA as well as the PGA Tour.
      http://www.pgatour.com/content/dam/pgatour/shotlink/rutgers.pdf

      • FunnyGuy says:

        Parting piece. If driving distance was this important then long drive champs would dominate the tour. Half or more can’t break 80. There’s more to scoring than driving it long.

  10. JB says:

    Maybe it wasn’t the length as much as the straightness that made the Ishii ball such an advantage for Woods — giving him more fairway hits, which had been a big problem for him in the past. Did any obvious changes happen between 2004 and 2005 which might account for his increased driving distance?

    • lannyh says:

      Well, the Rock Ishii ball’s straightness was the new thing. The solid core balls became not just long, but straight and consistent enough for the pros.

      • JB says:

        True. I guess what I was aiming at was that both Pebble Beach and St. Andrews are close to an ocean, so wind is usually a factor and a long and straight ball might be a sizable advantage over players obligated to play an old technology ball. Your post about how driving stats a kept is important to keep in mind because the variables involved in compiling that stat (i.e. club selection) might make it a non-definitive stat when applied to the small sample size of just one player in one year. Looking at the driving distance of the entire tour for a given year is probably more valid. My question about 2005 was in response to FunnyGuy’s post, but I’m a bit of a rookie with these message boards and didn’t post in in the right place,

      • lannyh says:

        I knew you were responding to him, but I couldn’t resist putting in my two cents!

      • FunnyGuy says:

        Ugh, just can’t break away from this…..looking at Tiger’s driving distance, it didn’t change much until 2004 to 2005 where it spiked but then went back down. His accuracy has actually gotten worse over time. He went from 65-70% early on in his career to closer to 55% nowadays.

      • lannyh says:

        Friend, you are just trying to convince yourself of an untruth now. You are trying to cherry-pick stats that will “prove” that Woods “couldn’t have gotten any advantage” from the Rock Ishii ball.

        Your individual Woods stats are too small of a sample size to be meaningful, and they would be highly dependent upon many things: which tourneys were played; the weather conditions at the event; the club used to tee off.

        But even so, using your stats, Woods driving went up five yards from 1999 to 2000, the period in question. You just skipped right over this and went to his post-surgery years to compare.

        What you have to accept is that the Rocki Ishii ball and Pro V1 are LONGER and STRAIGHTER than any ball in golf history. This is not speculation; this is incontrovertible fact.

        And Woods had that ball from May 2000 to December 2000 when the other players did not yet have it.

    • Sports-realist2 says:

      i’ve always felt that steroids were involved long before the 2009 info…….To connect Alex Rodriquez and Tiger Woods(same age, similar connections) to steroids use at around the same time, shouldn’t be considered too far of a stretch….

      • lannyh says:

        You know, I didn’t, but I guess I was fooled by the IMG/Steinberg/advertisers image. I thought Woods was this devoted golf workaholic who would no more cheat than, well, Gandhi. Once the Galea connections and sick stuff with the hookers came out, my eyes were opened. Only then did I see the weight gain and the “roid rage behavior” as highly suspicious.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s