[Jason Thurman]

I hear people talk about how easy it is to get better at short game shots vs. the full swing all the time. I wish I believed them. It just hasn't been my experience.


Erik's point that you need to get good at a few shots around the green, rather than being semi-literate at a bunch of them, really resonates. For most of my life, I've been a jabby, stabby pitcher and chipper of the ball. And for most of that time, I could hit every shot from the high lob to the low spinner... sometimes. Of course, I could also skull or chunk any shot from any lie at any time.


For the last 14 months or so, I've worked harder on wedge play than any other facet of the game. I completely overhauled my technique and the wedges in my bag. I watched every YouTube video that Stan Utley has ever appeared in. I read Art of the Short Game probably a dozen times in aggregate, maybe more. And it's not just Utley. Hell, I've randomly stumbled onto videos online of Erik himself giving pointers - he introduced me to the term "float loady."


More than anything, I hit shots. Shot after shot after shot. I spent whole 2 hour practice sessions at the short game area. I haven't spent less than 45 minutes there in a single practice session all year. I used to regularly go to the range for an hour or more, and then hit a few pitches with my remaining energy. I've reversed it now. Even once I finally make it to the range, I'm spending probably 60% of my time working on distance wedge shots.


All this has moved what was probably a 20 handicap short game down to about a 12 handicap short game. For the amount of work put in, I don't find my ROI any clearer than when I've put similar effort into my full swing in the past. Golf is hard. And the truth is that all facets of it matter. I'm a pretty decent long iron player for a 10 handicap, and I can point at all the data I want to prove that it's better to be good at that than at 30 yard pitch shots. But if I point to that data right after I skull one over the green, tough shit. I still have to go hit the pitch shot again.

[John Crowley]

I hear people talk about how easy it is to get better at short game shots vs. the full swing all the time. I wish I believed them. It just hasn't been my experience.


Erik's point that you need to get good at a few shots around the green, rather than being semi-literate at a bunch of them, really resonates. For most of my life, I've been a jabby, stabby pitcher and chipper of the ball. And for most of that time, I could hit every shot from the high lob to the low spinner... sometimes. Of course, I could also skull or chunk any shot from any lie at any time.


For the last 14 months or so, I've worked harder on wedge play than any other facet of the game. I completely overhauled my technique and the wedges in my bag. I watched every YouTube video that Stan Utley has ever appeared in. I read Art of the Short Game probably a dozen times in aggregate, maybe more. And it's not just Utley. Hell, I've randomly stumbled onto videos online of Erik himself giving pointers - he introduced me to the term "float loady."


More than anything, I hit shots. Shot after shot after shot. I spent whole 2 hour practice sessions at the short game area. I haven't spent less than 45 minutes there in a single practice session all year. I used to regularly go to the range for an hour or more, and then hit a few pitches with my remaining energy. I've reversed it now. Even once I finally make it to the range, I'm spending probably 60% of my time working on distance wedge shots.


All this has moved what was probably a 20 handicap short game down to about a 12 handicap short game. For the amount of work put in, I don't find my ROI any clearer than when I've put similar effort into my full swing in the past. Golf is hard. And the truth is that all facets of it matter. I'm a pretty decent long iron player for a 10 handicap, and I can point at all the data I want to prove that it's better to be good at that than at 30 yard pitch shots. But if I point to that data right after I skull one over the green, tough shit. I still have to go hit the pitch shot again.

Watch the Mickelson short game video on  YouTube and practice “hinge and hold”.

[Mark Fedeli]

Watch the Mickelson short game video on  YouTube and practice “hinge and hold”.

Be careful. You'll find no shortage of accomplished teachers who think 'hinge and hold' is some of the worst advice to give to a struggling chipper/pitcher of the ball.

[Ken Moum]

My point was how quickly you can improve. It could take months or years to cure your slice but you can take strokes off your game very quickly just by working on your short game unless you all ready are a skilled short game player.  As far as Erik...no comment.

Talk about misunderstanding the short game.  The path from a crappy short game to one that's going actually take strokes off is one that is almost impossible for most golfers to follow.


As I said earlier, my short game is vastly superior to my long game. (I had a single-digit handicap) for years while averaging fewer than four greens in regulation)


One reason is that use a method that's so simple even an athletic failure like me can use it successfully.  On a number of occasions I have "taught" friends how use this method and in every case they said, "It can't be that easy."


They left chipping and pitching better than they had in years.


Not one. NONE of them were still doing it a month later.

[Jason Thurman]

Watch the Mickelson short game video on  YouTube and practice “hinge and hold”.

LOL.


To be clear, I'm not looking for advice. I've gone from converting 14% of my up-and-down chances (getting down in two from inside 100 yards) early this year to over 40% in the last month. That percentage has increased steadily all season, even as I've felt completely lost at times. My club has no shortage of hinge & hold devotees - I run into them at the short game area, and we compare notes.


My point, really, is that all of us always want to believe we're just a YouTube video away from scratch. And when it comes to the short game, people talk like all it takes is a little bit of practice and you'll be Seve in no time. In reality, and to Ken's point, it's more like every other part of the game. It takes work, and discomfort, and dealing with setbacks along the way. You have to be working on the right things, and you have to keep believing in them even when you and your partner shoot a better ball 41 on league night because one of you can't hit the damn green once he gets inside 120 yards that week.


Just from the little description Ken gave, I'll bet the move I'm working on resembles what he does. It's shockingly easy to do it right, but getting to where you do it right all the time is REALLY hard. Like everything else in golf, really.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I typed up a few responses, but at the end of the day, it boiled down to a few bullet points.

• Some of these things are "facts," so there's almost no sense debating them. ~2/3 the difference between two classes of golfers comes from the full swing, the other 1/3 from the short game/putting. And this is when the short game extends out to 100 yards. Chop it off at 60 or something and it's more unbalanced.
• Generally speaking, you can get better "faster" with the short game, but those are limited. Again, assuming a pretty typical 10 handicapper, he's going to get only three shots if his short game/putting improve to scratch level. The other nearly 7 shots will come from driving and approach shots.
• Tom, yeah, I thought it may have been Rai in the bunker. My point was that he could have had a tap-in par had he hit the fairway and hit the green, and been less stressed. People remember the great short game shot, but forget the other 270 shots he hit before that.
• Mark, I suspect we have slightly different pictures in our minds. I think a good short game generally helps save a bad day, but the "good" or "great" days are often when your driving and/or approach shot game has a good day. Also, I get more satisfaction out of hitting an 8I to 24 feet and tapping in for par than I get from pulling my 8I into a tough lie, pitching to seven feet, and making the putt.
• To me, with my definitions, hinge and hold is a chipping technique, not a pitching technique.

I'm still hopeful that the architecture and design can be discussed. I don't think I'm saying anything new that interesting green complexes with contours and elevation and shapes can make the approach shots more interesting AND the short game shots more interesting.

One of the courses around me has relatively simple greens, fairly planar, but one to which you hit anything from a 5I to a PW to the green has a ridge running up the right third of the green, with fall-offs right and left with the right one being three feet or so. The question is from the fairway whether you go at the flag a bit more than you're comfortable doing, or whether you play to the middle of the green and hope to push it when the flag is right. Hit the middle of the green and you have to deal with that ridge on your putt… Miss it right and you've got the green at your waist level. It's a subtle thing, that ridge, but I find it adds interest to the approach shot and the short game shots if you miss the green.

I'm sure that's like architecture 101 level stuff, but I'm hopeful others can write (so I can read and learn) more about what can be done around greens to make short game shots more interesting. Obviously green contours and features are interesting, but how do you tie these into the green surrounds? What's the limit on how much elevation you can create on a relatively flat site without it feeling "too much" or phony or something?

[A.G._Crockett]

Over the course of multiple rounds by many players, and pretty much at any level, it's ball striking that dominates.  And even for the pros, it's a game of misses, and controlling WHERE you miss is the key to the short game.  That doesn't mean that the short game and putting aren't a big deal; they are.

AG - hope you're well!


Why is it then that the only time Rory wins is when he putts well? Same for DJ...

Jim,

With on occasional exceptions, nobody wins on Tour when they don't putt above the field average.  It happens, but it doesn't happen much; if I was more ambitious, I'd pull out Broadie's book and give you the exact numbers, which he has crunched, but in this regard, Rory and DJ are no different than anybody else. 


But that's not really the point.  The key point, IMO, is that Rory and DJ and all the others that win on Tour hit the ball well enough that week to give themselves putts that they could make.  As Erik points out, in most cases, the difference between a higher and lower finish is about 2/3rd's full swing stuff.  Nobody is winning on Tour because they made a ton of 25 footers; they're winning because they are hitting their approach shots closer than the field.

None of this discounts the importance of the short game and putting; guys with bad short games or guys that are bad putters never get on Tour in the first place.  The margins are incredibly small out there, and if a player is bad at anything, he won't be around long.  But most weeks for most players, it's ball striking that either drives the bus, or puts the bus in the ditch.

[Garland Bayley]

If I play every day, my game improves. Therefore, when I go on golf trips to Buda, and play practically every day often 36 hole days for three weeks my game improves. When I return home and play just weekends, my improvement shows up for a couple of weeks before going south for the rest of the year. Where does my game get better. My long game is where the strokes come off my scores. My putting doesn't improve noticeably. My chips and pitches may show some improvement, but not enough to get me close enough to have anymore one putts. Practice wise you could generalize to say that I am taking approximately two long shots per hole, one pitch or chip per hole, and two putts per hole. So my long shot practice was the same in quantity as my putting practice. But, my long game shows noticeable improvement that my putting game doesn't. Even though my chipping/putting gets practiced approximately only 1/2 the other two parts of my game, I still noticeably start getting it closer with my chipping/putting, just not enough to take strokes off my score. I would attribute it to an improvement in "touch" or "feel". Once I stop playing so often, my touch or feel around the greens diminishes noticeably, and my full swing consistency also diminishes noticeably, thereby raising my scores.

It seems the recommendation that the best way to improve my play is to practice my short game. But, how much play time do I have to give up to get an improvement that would justify giving up my play time? Given my observations from golf travel, I can get more bang for my buck (practice time) on long game, than on short game. Dean Knuth had reason to call guys like me Wild Willys.

[Niall C]

Garland

That's an interesting way of looking at it.

In haven't been a member anywhere for the last couple of years so my play has been in fits and bursts, a bit like you when your not on tour. Generally my weakness is mid to long irons and my strength is my short game. My chipping does tend to suffer when I haven't played but my putting remains OK, probably because I can practice on my lounge carpet (stimps at 4 or 5 depending on whether its been hovered in the last 6 months).

My mid to long irons are so bad that I've got a better chance of hitting a green with a hybrid/fairway wood in my hands. Now logically should I not practice and improve my iron play or do what I do and practice my short game when I get a chance ?

Niall

[A.G._Crockett]

I was watching a Golf Channel segment with an LPGA pro (can't remember which one now) and the question was asked of her, "How much practice time do you spend on the short game vs the full swing?"

I found her answer fascinating.  She said that AT HOME, the majority of her time is full swing work, especially in the off-season.  She then said that when they are out of Tour, the pros spend a larger segment of their practice time on short game and putting to get used to the grasses that they are seeing week to week on different courses.

You can take that for what it's worth.

[Joe Zucker]

To give a different perspective from A.G., I've heard Luke Donald say that he almost exclusively practiced his short game.  On a normal day at home, he would rarely hit more than a medium bucket, then spend 4-5 hours chipping and putting.  I guess it's no mystery how he got to #1.

[JESII]

I think it supports your (and Broadie's) overall thesis that short game impact is relatively small, and short lived while long game improvement is much longer term (like a winter off-season swing adjustment) and more impactful over the course of a full season.


The swing will be what it is on a particular week, but if it's on, you'd really like the short game to be on as well to maximize performance.


My experience is as a long time competitive golfer that has typically been a much better course manager/short game and putter survivor. I feel like I can beat anyone BECAUSE I know I will out putt them. Understood...my "observation/experience" is about .0001% of the data Broadie provides so not looking to debate credibility just speaking to the lack of consideration for the emotional component in the data.

[Kalen Braley]

Several years ago when I was playing and practicing a lot more than usual, I was regularly shooting between 82-85, instead of my typical 88-92.  The reason was almost exactly as Garland described.

My putting was always good, so no improvement there and my short game around the greens was no different, anywhere from mediocre to OK.  But it was off the tee and my long approaches where my misses got a lot better. Instead of being crooked and 210-220, I was a lot straighter and hitting 225 to 230ish.  And for a high capper approaching from rough with a 4 iron vs 5-6 iron from the fairway makes a world of difference on the long holes.  This translated to a lot more GIRs and pars, taking far less double bogeys, and almost entirely eliminating anything worse than that.

[Jason Thurman]

• Mark, I suspect we have slightly different pictures in our minds. I think a good short game generally helps save a bad day, but the "good" or "great" days are often when your driving and/or approach shot game has a good day. [/l][/l]

This generally lines up with my experience in my own rounds, and also with how I think about other players. The guys who go lowest are the ones who can really hit it, of course. The guys who always seem to shoot within a stroke or two of their handicap, though, are the guys with great short games who can salvage an off day tee-to-green. I'd add, though, that there's huge upside to having a strong short game as a handicap golfer. The guys who stripe it but lack finesse around the green struggle to get into the mix on an off day. The guys who get up-and-down over and over can still compete and sometimes squeak out a winning round when they're not hitting it especially well. Over the course of a season, they end up being the toughest marks because of their higher floor.

One of the courses around me has relatively simple greens, fairly planar, but one to which you hit anything from a 5I to a PW to the green has a ridge running up the right third of the green, with fall-offs right and left with the right one being three feet or so... It's a subtle thing, that ridge, but I find it adds interest to the approach shot and the short game shots if you miss the green.

I'm sure that's like architecture 101 level stuff, but I'm hopeful others can write (so I can read and learn) more about what can be done around greens to make short game shots more interesting. Obviously green contours and features are interesting, but how do you tie these into the green surrounds? What's the limit on how much elevation you can create on a relatively flat site without it feeling "too much" or phony or something?

I'm with this. The course with fairly simple greens noted above could be my home course. There's not much that jumps out at you the first time around, but I've learned over time that the greens really dictate positioning throughout the round even if the slopes and surrounds aren't so bold that you immediately notice them. And I'm learning, from conversations with other members, that plenty of people who have played the course for years still have no clue when they're out of position on certain holes. A few themes I've noticed:

• Greens like an inverted Pringles chip: Several greens funnel down toward the middle of the green from their side edges. Our superintendent frequently cuts pins at the bottom of those slopes, where only a ball that hits the green's edge at a trickle will stop near the hole. It puts a serious premium on missing to the correct side of the green, which in turn requires some discipline because it's the opposite side from where the pin is placed. It also adds a lot of day-to-day variety as the preferred miss moves as the pin moves.
• Subtle but influential ridges running through the green from back to front: Similar to the hole Erik noted, we have several greens where a ridge through the middle creates a real premium on hitting the correct side of the green, or missing in the correct spot. On a couple holes that immediately come to mind, that correct spot is usually the same side of the ridge the pin is on - you'd rather be a little short-sided than have to traverse the ridge with a longer pitch. On a couple others, I'd always want to be on the low side of the ridge.
• Greens with fairly uniform slopes that, combined with their surrounds, create dissonance on where to miss: Our second green is pretty narrow, and generally slopes from back left to front right with varying severity. There's a whole field of room to miss left, whereas a miss right could find a bunker or get shrugged off a sideslope that carries the ball away from the green, where it could possibly be stymied by a tree or two as well. With a good lie, the easiest up-and-down is from the right. But the good lies are easier to come by on the left, even though up-and-downs from there require deft touch with the green running away. Really, the only "good" miss is a short one. Which probably makes sense on a 440 yard hole with an uphill approach if you think good architecture frustrates the strong player while giving the weaker player a chance to compete.

There are plenty of other examples. One of the things I love about the course is that the primary elements dictating playing strategy aren't bold at all. On one hand, that means that average GCAer would play it and shrug it off as a pretty mediocre layout - it lacks the dramatic and obviously-strategic design elements that stand out on so many of the world's best courses. But on the other hand, it adds a lot of nuance only revealed with multiple plays. Around the greens the course just rarely makes it obvious that you've missed in a bad spot, as it derives most of its interest from subtle slopes. What's funny is that it's a super hilly course tee to green, and a typical round is full of uneven lies. And yet, even though the slopes tee to green ARE bold and obvious, it also doesn't really seem to resonate with players that certain lies in the fairway are vastly preferable to others. Filling the course with fairway bunkers would probably improve how the average golfer and GCAer would rate it, but I'm not sure it would be a better course as the "answers" tee to green would likely be clearer, but no more significant to understand.


What I'm getting at, I guess, is that I think we underrate subtlety, both around the greens as it adds short game challenge and interest, but also through the green as features that don't jump out in a photo still work to create advantageous and disadvantageous positions.[/list]

[A.G._Crockett]

I think it supports your (and Broadie's) overall thesis that short game impact is relatively small, and short lived while long game improvement is much longer term (like a winter off-season swing adjustment) and more impactful over the course of a full season.


The swing will be what it is on a particular week, but if it's on, you'd really like the short game to be on as well to maximize performance.


My experience is as a long time competitive golfer that has typically been a much better course manager/short game and putter survivor. I feel like I can beat anyone BECAUSE I know I will out putt them. Understood...my "observation/experience" is about .0001% of the data Broadie provides so not looking to debate credibility just speaking to the lack of consideration for the emotional component in the data.

Jim,

It's not "the emotional component in the data"; it's the first part of the that sentence.  Your game and your experience is, as you say, a VERY small part of the data set.  And in an even game, your putting might well be the difference between you and a player of similar ball striking skills; Broadie accounts for that.  And Broadie NEVER says that putting is unimportant.


I'd also point out again that, in order to be in position to make putts, you have to be reasonably proficient at ball striking.  Maybe not great, but reasonably proficient.  Even getting up and down a lot requires you to have missed the green in a decent place; there's just not much way around that.

[JMEvensky]

I'd also point out again that, in order to be in position to make putts, you have to be reasonably proficient at ball striking.  Maybe not great, but reasonably proficient.  Even getting up and down a lot requires you to have missed the green in a decent place; there's just not much way around that.

Would it be an oversimplification to say this is the gist? Great putting is frequently a function of having makeable putts which are the result of proficient ball striking?

[Peter Pallotta]

JM -- you're good at simplifying things

Yes. And here's what I've noticed in checking the stats, and looking at the strokes gained numbers:
- When a tour stop is set up fairly easy (say, on a Thursday) and plenty of low scores are being shot, the pros known for being shorter hitters but good putters do indeed gain strokes on the field-putting, 11/2 and 2 and sometimes even more strokes.
- But when the course is made tougher (say, on a Sunday) and the pins are tucked and low scores are hard to come by, those same short-hitting pros suddenly seem to have no advantage at all, and often not only don't gain strokes of the field-putting but actually lose strokes to the field.
- Did good putters suddenly become bad putters -- either in relative (compared to the field) or absolute terms? I'd say 'of course not'. I'd conclude instead, as you say above, that 'good putting isn't only about good putting'.
- I see it many weeks, though maybe not enough to call it a pattern: ie the short-hitting-good-putters are in 15th place on Thursday, 22nd place of Friday, 18th place on Saturday, and 58th place by Sunday's end.

[Buck Wolter]

I have begun experimenting with the rule of 12 for chipping which gives you a rule of thumb for chipping based on carry and roll and equates to a club based on that. If you don't have great god given feel it is worth a look and at least gives you an idea of how far to hit it. I've played around a little with extending it out on bump and runs on firm ground with some success.


Back before George Gankas was really getting hot bought a lifetime membership to his website as I had been following him on twitter (he ended up suing his partner in that and built a new one leaving my membership worthless). There is one crappy video on there where he shows a 30-60 yard technique for pitching that was worth the $150 or so I paid. Both my son and I got dramatically better at that -- sort of like a Pelz method but a little more feel.


Getting fit for a new driver for the first time in my life has made a much more dramatic impact on my scores than the short game work though.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

To give a different perspective from A.G., I've heard Luke Donald say that he almost exclusively practiced his short game.  On a normal day at home, he would rarely hit more than a medium bucket, then spend 4-5 hours chipping and putting.  I guess it's no mystery how he got to #1.

Well, we know this. Luke got to #1 OWGR late in 2011 and through early 2012:

- He ranked #1 on the PGA Tour in SG:Approach - https://www.pgatour.com/content/pgatour/stats/stat.02568.y2011.html (fell off to 16th in 2012 at 0.582 and was 9th in 2010 at 0.661). In 2011, he gained 56.9 strokes over 52 rounds for 1.094 strokes per round gained with his approach shots.

- Around the Green in 2011? Luke was T18 at .273 strokes. In 58 measured rounds, he gained just over 14 total strokes. He actually fell off quite a bit from 2010 where he gained 24.6 strokes over 53 measured rounds (0.464/round) to rank second. He was 0.430 in 2012.

- Donald gained 0.870 in putting per round in 2011. In 2010, he gained 0.874 and in 2012, 0.818. He ranked first, first, and second in those years.

So, it looks like his driving and approach shots got better in 2011. They contributed to 0.546 strokes gained driving and 0.433 strokes gained approach from 2010 to 2011, for a total of 0.979 strokes gained from 2010 to 2011. His short game (-0.191) and putting (-0.004) actually went down from 2010 to 2011. (Part of that is because SG:ATG is cumulative, so if you miss more greens, you get more chances to gain strokes.)

I suspect there was also some European Tour OWGR cooking, too.

P.S. He's always been a short and crooked driver, but 2010: -0.506/179th, 2011: 0.040/92nd, 2012: -0.188/141st. 2011 was his only year being positive SG:OTT.

Would it be an oversimplification to say this is the gist? Great putting is frequently a function of having makeable putts which are the result of proficient ball striking?

Maybe.

How about this: I could put a better than average putter at 25 feet away (in "bad" spots) and a worse than average putter at 25 feet away (in "good" spots) and the worse putter would win the majority of the rounds (depends highly on the relative bad/goodness of the positions and the actual putters). Even Boo Weekley won a PGA Tour event… though it makes sense that it was at Hilton Head with their tiny greens. Every time he hit a green he had like 25 feet or less for birdie. That greatly minimizes putting and maximizes ballstriking.

[Rob Marshall]

“Even Boo Weekley won a PGA Tour event…”

Actually he won 3 and played on a Ryder Cup team. I’m thinking he’s done all right.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Actually he won 3 and played on a Ryder Cup team. I’m thinking he’s done all right.

He did, and I don't disagree with "he's done all right." My point was that Boo was a pretty terrible putter by Tour standards, yet won on Tour.

[Niall C]

As a matter of interest, how well did Weekley putt when he won his tournaments ?


Niall

[A.G._Crockett]

As a matter of interest, how well did Weekley putt when he won his tournaments ?


Niall

Niall,

It's a great question, and I dug out Broadie's book and searched the internet briefly and so far haven't been able to find the SG stats for Weekly's wins.  What DOES show up is that Weekley is a) a great ball striker, and b) a consistently poor putter, at least by Tour standards, almost always ranking at or near the very bottom of the Tour putting stats.


It's worth noting that two of Weekley's three Tour wins were in the period covered in Broadie's book (2004-2012) and I can't find Weekley's name anywhere, even though Broadie has a section labeled "Winning In Spite of Putting".  The poster child for this, btw, is Vijay Singh. 


In Broadie's research, covering 315 Tour events, the winner putted worse than the field 14 times, or 4% of the time, with Singh alone accounting for 5 of the 14.  However (and IMO this is the important part) winning with off-the-green performances that were worse than the field was much rarer; it happened only twice, which is .06%, and both were limited field events with only either 30 or 31 golfers.  Broadie also mentions Bubba Watson, Sean O'Hair, and Sergio Garcia, along with Singh, as players who won with relatively poor putting performances; that he does NOT mention Weekley might suggest that in the weeks that he won, Weekley wasn't especially bad as a putter.


Here are two quotes from this section of Broadie's book that sort of sum things up, I think.  Both statements are data-driven, and NOT statements of opinion.


"Tournament winners play better than the best golfers in the world when they win.  They usually do most everything well in those weeks. They putt better, drive better, hit more accurate approaches, and get up and down more often compared to the field."

"The numbers show that it's possible to win with below-average putting, but victories almost never happen with below-average ball striking."

[John Crowley]

Watch the Mickelson short game video on  YouTube and practice “hinge and hold”.

Be careful. You'll find no shortage of accomplished teachers who think 'hinge and hold' is some of the worst advice to give to a struggling chipper/pitcher of the ball.

Different strokes work for different folks (smiley face). Still a work in progress for me, I only chipped in three times this week (another smiley face).

[Philip Gawith]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CGC-IowFnqe/?igshid=2mg038481t4k


Taking us back to the beginning....Robert Rock explaining what’s he was up to last Sunday. Hope the link works.


Philip

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()