News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #200 on: November 23, 2017, 02:33:56 PM »
Erik,
I'll take this thread off the edge
Why would a woman not named Lexi ever play a tournament ball?
and if Lexi did, why would she need the course rerated?
People switch tees and negotiate handicaps every day-of course that's an answer.


There are many questions that need to be answered, the same as the multiple issues that have cropped up with unbridled, buy a new driver every year technology.
It's about what's good for golf, not individuals such as you me and Rory making a living at it.
The tide has turned-embrace it.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2017, 02:37:12 PM by jeffwarne »
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #201 on: November 23, 2017, 02:41:45 PM »
I'll take this thread off the edge
Why would a woman not named Lexi ever play a tournament ball?
and if Lexi did, why would she need the course rerated?
People switch tees and negotiate handicaps every day-of course that's an answer
Because who are you to tell someone else what they can and can't do? If the female club champion, who is also going to compete in the U.S. Women's Am, or the Four-Ball, or go to an NCAA Division I school, or some other thing that requires the Tournament Ball wants to learn and use the Tournament Ball, who are you to say no?

The topic is about the USGA and a roll-back. The re-rating of courses for two classes of golf balls is a related tangent, but it's still a tangent. The actual course rating system is not a tangent, IMO.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I ignore Rob, Tim, and Garland.

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #202 on: November 23, 2017, 02:49:41 PM »
Don't worry about the women...they will get their own ball if this goes through. Then the seniors, juniors and handicapped. Try to fight that without looking like a cad. There is no end to it all until we all reach every green in regulation...no sooner, no later.


When we all hit the ball the same do you really believe architecture will remain or become more interesting?


Autonomous golf for the masses. Should be great for those who don't want to learn how to drive. At least we will all finish in the exact predetermined time.

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #203 on: November 23, 2017, 03:09:03 PM »
I'll take this thread off the edge
Why would a woman not named Lexi ever play a tournament ball?
and if Lexi did, why would she need the course rerated?
People switch tees and negotiate handicaps every day-of course that's an answer
Because who are you to tell someone else what they can and can't do? If the female club champion, who is also going to compete in the U.S. Women's Am, or the Four-Ball, or go to an NCAA Division I school, or some other thing that requires the Tournament Ball wants to learn and use the Tournament Ball, who are you to say no?

The topic is about the USGA and a roll-back. The re-rating of courses for two classes of golf balls is a related tangent, but it's still a tangent. The actual course rating system is not a tangent, IMO.


If a rollback, no need to have 2 sets of ratimgs.


If bifurcation, are you telling me courses are too small for Women's Am contestants?
Why would they need a tournament ball if bifurcation for PGA Men's and certain USGA Men's events events went through
they can play any ball they want-I'm not going to stop them -but why would they if current courses can contain them?
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #204 on: November 23, 2017, 03:16:02 PM »
If a rollback, no need to have 2 sets of ratimgs.
I agree with that hypothetical, but 99.99% of golfers don't need a rolled back ball.

If bifurcation, are you telling me courses are too small for Women's Am contestants?
I didn't say that. I've simply said that if there are two legal balls, you cannot legislate who plays them. The only way you might be able to get away with it is if the Condition of Competition is pretty clearly limited to just high-level men's events, and I just don't see that happening.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I ignore Rob, Tim, and Garland.

M. Shea Sweeney

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #205 on: November 23, 2017, 03:19:00 PM »

Erik-
Do you spend any time around the Tour?

Yes.
The lack or character rests off the course--not on the course. And mainly the off the course "lack of character' is simply a generational thing happening in every sport.... Not on the course. As they say in the NHL--GATORADE AND ROOM SERVICE.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm talking about people displaying emotion on the golf course, not being robots. I'm not talking about integrity, or whatever you seem to be talking about. I'm talking about entertaining behavior - Tiger reacting with fist pumps when he hits good shots, and mini temper tantrums when he doesn't.



Erik-
The diversity in the game in regards to personality, swings, style of play is just as plentiful now as it was whenever you want to compare it to. All you need to do is get out on the grass and see it in person. It's awesome.


I don't know what you an Arble are talking about. While I'm here--SEAN ARBLE- really? all the swings on the tour look the same? 


Furthermore I can't believe you take Rickie Fowler to task. Clearly you haven't followed him and seen his deal in person. Guy plays the game so beautifully and different then a lot of guys around him.


I mean how much different could Speith and Justin Thomas be (technique wise).


The Presidents Cup emotion fest is laughable. Go watch George Knudson's interview on CBS about homeostasis...


I am also not sure what this has to do with bifurcation. We're talking about keeping the character IN the game. IN the playing field.





Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #206 on: November 23, 2017, 03:26:22 PM »

I am also not sure what this has to do with bifurcation. We're talking about keeping the character IN the game. IN the playing field.
I don't either. So All I'll say is that  I'm not the only one who laments the "sameness" of the players and the "robotic" nature they exhibit over the past few years, decades.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I ignore Rob, Tim, and Garland.

M. Shea Sweeney

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #207 on: November 23, 2017, 03:36:11 PM »

I am also not sure what this has to do with bifurcation. We're talking about keeping the character IN the game. IN the playing field.
I don't either. So All I'll say is that  I'm not the only one who laments the "sameness" of the players and the "robotic" nature they exhibit over the past few years, decades.

Decades?
Right, because John Daly, Greg Norman, Corey Pavin, Nick Faldo, Tiger Woods, David Duval, Vijay Singh, Phil Mickelson, Nick Price, Jose Maria Olazabal, Carlos Franco, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc played so similar

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #208 on: November 23, 2017, 04:42:55 PM »

Decades?
Right, because John Daly, Greg Norman, Corey Pavin, Nick Faldo, Tiger Woods, David Duval, Vijay Singh, Phil Mickelson, Nick Price, Jose Maria Olazabal, Carlos Franco, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc played so similar
I said years and decades, yes, and I'm sticking by that. Jose Maria and Corey Pavin is your counter-argument? I think there's less "personality" on Tour now than at any point in the past. It's been declining for decades.

I'm not sure what this all has to do with the actual topic, so I'm tapping out. Have a great Thanksgiving.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I ignore Rob, Tim, and Garland.

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #209 on: November 23, 2017, 08:29:01 PM »
If a rollback, no need to have 2 sets of ratimgs.
I agree with that hypothetical, but 99.99% of golfers don't need a rolled back ball.

If bifurcation, are you telling me courses are too small for Women's Am contestants?
I didn't say that. I've simply said that if there are two legal balls, you cannot legislate who plays them. The only way you might be able to get away with it is if the Condition of Competition is pretty clearly limited to just high-level men's events, and I just don't see that happening.

Sorry, but choosing a tournament ball in casual play shouldn't get the course rerated for you.
We don't rerate for players using 2010 grooves, even though they are entitled to use pre 2010 grooves in a non elite event.
For that matter we don't rerate for players who pick up 6 footers and drop balls instead of reteeing.(self bifurcated rules)


Why would there be a tournament ball for anyone besides "high level men's events," or the .01%


If someone wanted to go back and forth, I guess they could have 2 handicaps, but there wouldn't be any need to rerate the course.
One handicap would just be higher than the other.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2017, 08:39:42 PM by jeffwarne »
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #210 on: November 23, 2017, 08:49:08 PM »
If someone wanted to go back and forth, I guess they could have 2 handicaps, but there wouldn't be any need to rerate the course.
One handicap would just be higher than the other.
Because you get one handicap index, not two.

Sorry, but choosing a tournament ball in casual play shouldn't get the course rerated for you.
I disagree, and seeing as I'm not going to convince you, nor you me, that's all I have to say on that. Respectfully.

To the actual topic, I don't think we need a tournament ball, nor a roll-back. I don't think we need either.

For that matter we don't rerate for players who pick up 6 footers and drop balls instead of reteeing.(self bifurcated rules)
That's not "bifurcated rules." That's "not playing by the rules."
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I ignore Rob, Tim, and Garland.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #211 on: November 23, 2017, 08:57:15 PM »
Jeff,

It seems to me they might have to have a different rating, because they currently base it on scratch driving 250, and bogey driving 200 I think. With a limited ball that must change. Also, I know ratings are based on differences between tees. The distance differences between tees would be shorter for rating adjustments.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #212 on: November 23, 2017, 09:00:24 PM »
Erik,
we got a little sidetracked but the handicap discussion is on topic.


Back to my original question i've now asked three times.


Earlier in the thread you stated


 "We have so much to lose by bifurcating"

What do we risk losing?


"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #213 on: November 23, 2017, 09:08:47 PM »
Jeff,

It seems to me they might have to have a different rating, because they currently base it on scratch driving 250, and bogey driving 200 I think. With a limited ball that must change. Also, I know ratings are based on differences between tees. The distance differences between tees would be shorter for rating adjustments.


Garland,
i nderstand why the USGA with their silly handicapping mights say you should rerate it it...
Nobody understands the system as t is, but rerating tees that will never be played with a tournament ball is well...silly overkill.


How many players that use the tournament ball would ever use a handicap anyway?
1% of players of 1% of guys who use both balls of 1% of players that would ever play in an event that allows a handicap basically is what we are tallking about- at best.

"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #214 on: November 23, 2017, 09:27:21 PM »
Garland,
i nderstand why the USGA with their silly handicapping mights say you should rerate it it...
Nobody understands the system as t is, but rerating tees that will never be played with a tournament ball is well...silly overkill.

I understand it.  :)

I've rated courses for about 12 years now. Captain for two, including attending the national seminar.

Not a difficult thing really. Just takes a little bit to get it.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I ignore Rob, Tim, and Garland.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #215 on: November 23, 2017, 10:18:57 PM »
(Those calculations have undergone numerous changes over the last 30+ years, including changes to the corridor width, how we rate trees, how the depth of bunkers is determined and weighed, etc.).

So any change to the definitions - like a scratch golfer hitting the ball 250 yards with his first shot and up to 220 with his second, and similar (but shorter) distances for the bogey golfer, will mean a change to BOTH ratings (and thus the slope) if a shorter ball is made available.

After all, the slope affects every round differential and thus every handicap index except for those very close to the course rating.



I had no idea that the USGA keeps tinkering with the formula for the Slope System.  Who's in charge of that?


On my first few courses, I would go out with the state golf association team when they were there to rate the course.  Once I understood it pretty well, I lost interest in it, because there are so many things I try to get into my designs that are not a factor in calculating the rating and slope.


By far the silliest of these is the idea that the "scratch player" drives it 250 yards and hits his second shot 220 yards every time, and that the "bogey player" drives it 200 and hits his second shot 170.  Scratch golfers have been way past those numbers for twenty years, but they haven't changed the distances.  And as for bogey golfers, I still remember what Mr. Dye said when I tried to explain it to him:


"370 yards?  After two shots the bogey golfer could be anywhere.  He might still be on the tee."[size=78%] [/size]

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #216 on: November 24, 2017, 02:12:46 AM »

"370 yards?  After two shots the bogey golfer could be anywhere.  He might still be on the tee."

I resemble that remark.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #217 on: November 24, 2017, 08:38:45 AM »
ERik,
4 pages ago, and abou 15 responses ago by you, you stated


"we risk so much by bifurcating"


I asked you what we risked, and expressed my concerns and what we risk if we don't rollback or bifurcate,


Respectfully, and for the fourth time...


What do you feel we risk by bifurcation?
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Peter Pallotta

Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #218 on: November 24, 2017, 01:00:44 PM »
The discussion between Jeff and Erik has been a pleasure to read: they both know their stuff and each in their way is well/highly placed and runs in the right circles re this issue. So I have a question for them, and for others (below). The preamble:

Reading this debate, it strikes me that moving forward the issue of a potential roll-back or bifurcation won't be resolved through statistics or even 'facts', let alone through emotion, rhetoric or romantic ideals.

What's at play here instead are two distinct and far-reaching "visions" of the game (both as a spectator and participatory sport):

One vision is essentially the status quo -- with seemingly happy average golfers and with (at the top levels) higher swing speeds producing exponentially longer distances.

The other vision is of a game that fosters a commitment both to the past (the continued viability of classic courses as championship tests, and of a broader golfing skill-set, i.e. less intense emphasis on distance) and to the future (with a nod to sustainability through limits on the amount of land required).

So, the practical question to both Jeff and Erik (and anyone else with an idea):
Who do you have in your respective corners?
Which people/parts of the golfing world do you think will embrace/fight for Vision One, and which will be willing (and able) to work through the complex issues involved with making Vision Two a reality?
Will it in any way be a fair fight?
In every area of life, the status quo always has the advantage -- are there people/forces in place that realistically have a chance to displace it?

Peter
« Last Edit: November 24, 2017, 01:11:07 PM by Peter Pallotta »

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #219 on: November 24, 2017, 01:26:20 PM »
I had no idea that the USGA keeps tinkering with the formula for the Slope System.  Who's in charge of that?
The USGA. They publish a new manual every 2-4 years. The current manual is only for two years, IIRC, because of the impending World Handicap System (I'm only capitalizing it to give it significance. I'm not trying to imply that it's a formal, assigned name.)

On my first few courses, I would go out with the state golf association team when they were there to rate the course.  Once I understood it pretty well, I lost interest in it, because there are so many things I try to get into my designs that are not a factor in calculating the rating and slope.
Right. I mean, the system isn't perfect, but IMO it's pretty good at, relatively simply (two numbers), taking the complex and varied nature of golf courses and golfers games and providing a platform that allows them to compete.

By far the silliest of these is the idea that the "scratch player" drives it 250 yards and hits his second shot 220 yards every time, and that the "bogey player" drives it 200 and hits his second shot 170. Scratch golfers have been way past those numbers for twenty years, but they haven't changed the distances.  And as for bogey golfers, I still remember what Mr. Dye said when I tried to explain it to him:
They're actually not too far beyond 250 yards.



Of course there's some simplification taking place. They have to simplify or else the course rating process would be incredibly dense and difficult. I think they've struck a pretty good balance of simplicity while taking into account the various features and games of players of many ability levels.

------

Jeff, I think your question about what we could lose has been answered several times. There are several things we lose. I think the biggest thing is that since golf is a game not played against opponents per se (i.e. there's no defense, nobody's hitting a ball back at you, or blocking your route to the goal, etc.), we risk losing the connection we have to players of all ability levels. Right now, golfers can relate to players of all ability levels. They can marvel at Dustin Johnson's drive, and simultaneously give themselves credit when they pull something off that they saw on TV. We're all playing the same game under the same rules. That's kinda magical, and a big draw for a lot of people.

I think perhaps the next biggest thing is that we actually create a hurdle for people on the bubble. Where do you draw this line? Players who are near that bubble will play with the "tournament ball" in case they're ever required to use it. It'll create confusion and players will be at a disadvantage much of the time: if they play with the tournament ball exclusively they're disadvantaged when they play against others who aren't using it, and if they play mostly with the "regular" ball, they'll be at a disadvantage when they play in U.S. Open qualifying, U.S. Mid-Am qualifying, etc.

Basically, I don't see the point in making a rule for 0.001% of golfers. The vast majority of golfers are fine playing from 6500 yards or less.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I ignore Rob, Tim, and Garland.

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #220 on: November 24, 2017, 01:41:23 PM »





Interesting graphic Erik, thanks for posting. I assume it's male golfers.
Whilst apreciating that the graphic is based on averages I do wonder what it says about an individual player if their swingspeed is say 104 mph, therefore they should be a 6 hcp but they actually play off say a 10 hcp! Or their swingspeed is say 93 mph, should be hcp is 13 but they actually play off say 7!
The use, or lack of use of the 15th club maybe? Or they're a rubbish/brilliant putter and short-gamer?
Lots of aspects. Effects rollback or not as well...rollback rocks that roll, rollback softies that spin etc>


By the way, and please take this the right way, loads of cutting and pasting sentences is a pain in the neck, please don't go down that road.  :)


atb


Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #221 on: November 24, 2017, 01:54:01 PM »
As someone that has never played anywhere near the usage averages used in handicap calculation, I Don't have as much faith in it as has been expressed here.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

JMEvensky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #222 on: November 24, 2017, 01:57:34 PM »

I still subscribe to the Goodale Bifurcation Theory (TM) which states that bifurcation will ultimately lead back to unification--using the more restricted ball.


Pro's being forced to use a restricted ball would eventually filter down to club tournaments. The only people using non-PGAT conforming golf balls will be the same types who put Vaseline on their drivers back in the day.

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #223 on: November 24, 2017, 02:47:42 PM »


Jeff, . There are several things we lose. I think the biggest thing is that since golf is a game not played against opponents per se (i.e. there's no defense, nobody's hitting a ball back at you, or blocking your route to the goal, etc.), we risk losing the connection we have to players of all ability levels. Right now, golfers can relate to players of all ability levels. They can marvel at Dustin Johnson's drive, and simultaneously give themselves credit when they pull something off that they saw on TV. We're all playing the same game under the same rules. That's kinda magical, and a big draw for a lot of people.

I think perhaps the next biggest thing is that we actually create a hurdle for people on the bubble. Where do you draw this line? Players who are near that bubble will play with the "tournament ball" in case they're ever required to use it. It'll create confusion and players will be at a disadvantage much of the time: if they play with the tournament ball exclusively they're disadvantaged when they play against others who aren't using it, and if they play mostly with the "regular" ball, they'll be at a disadvantage when they play in U.S. Open qualifying, U.S. Mid-Am qualifying, etc.

Basically, I don't see the point in making a rule for 0.001% of golfers. The vast majority of golfers are fine playing from 6500 yards or less.


Thanks Erik,
In the name of:
continued use of classic courses for majors,
less bastardization of classic courses,
relevancy of classic courses rather than being considered obsolete by paying members.
sustainability in water usage, cost, and acreage
walkability
being able to play similar tees as others
less tees being needed/built
integrity of elite golf (as in occasionally seeing something besides a gap wedge) and wind actually being a factor in shotmaking, and curvature and trajectiory, and spin control of the ball in general
par protection(which I'm not really for but it exists) via something other than stupid stuff that slows down play like suoer deep rough, narrow fairways, water, OB, native grass


I'm totally willing to risk what you mention we risk.
It ain't even close IMHO.


BTW, The average golfer in no way, shape or form can relate to DJ-nor EVER pull off what he does.
In fact, when we were self bifurcated (pros using balatas, persimmons and blades and ams using Top Flites and cavity backs) they had a MUCH better chance of achieving distances somewhere near a pro.
Now-no chance


It's just nice that I'm not the only one anymore....and that it's actually being discussed



« Last Edit: November 24, 2017, 02:52:03 PM by jeffwarne »
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #224 on: November 24, 2017, 02:58:34 PM »
Thanks Erik,
In the name of:
continued use of classic courses for majors,
less bastardization of classic courses,
relevancy of classic courses rather than being considered obsolete by paying members.
Yeah, as I said… I'm not. Those things are only relevant to a tiny % of golfers, and we still play major championships on courses that are pretty darn old.

less tees being needed/built
Hey, I'm in favor of MORE tees being built, per the LongLeaf system.

integrity of elite golf (as in occasionally seeing something besides a gap wedge)
Massive exaggeration.

Seriously, we've increased the average drive, what, 23 yards since 1987 or 1997 or whatever? That's two clubs. Big whoop.

Funny, too, how the more difficult holes pros face are often the shorter ones, the ones that make them think and make a decision. The longer the hole, the more easy the choice is: blast away.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I ignore Rob, Tim, and Garland.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back