first_imgEveryone has those favorite gear items, especially when it comes to clothing. Your favorite pair of cycling socks, your favorite pair of running shorts, your favorite camping flannel. There is a reason for this, they are either the most comfortable, perform the best, or hold a special place due to the memories you have made in them.I added a favorite gear item to my list this fall and winter, the Ibex Woolies 150 Crew. I found myself wearing the baselayer beneath bike jerseys, on runs, under my flannel to work, and more. It is just so comfortable that you can’t help but keep it at the top of the drawer.The 150g/m2 weight wool is incredibly soft and cozy, so much so that multiple times I found my girlfriend curled up on the couch in it. It keeps you quite warm while also doing a great job at regulating temperature. I found myself pairing the Woolie 150 with a cycling jersey, or in the case of running another baselayer or wind vest. It is a baselayer (which it excels at) not a mid layer, so keep that in mind when dressing for your outing.The fit is well thought out. Tight enough to keep out of the way and not bunch up if worn under another layer. The collar is nice and snug, but never tries to strangle you. I am 6’1” and 160 pounds and found a medium to be the perfect fit.As far as pricing you’re looking at $80. Wool is not cheap, we can all agree on that. The fact is though I have worn the Woolies 150 Crew well over 20 times and it shows no sign of wear and tear. The quality is top notch and does a much better job than some of the other synthetic baselayers I own.Bottom Line: If you’re looking to add another favorite gear item to your stockpile, be sure to give the Ibex Woolies 150 Crew a hard look.Check out the Ibex Woolies video below:last_img read more

first_imgI always knew people were inherently good. I’ve never had reason for a negative outlook on society, no bad experiences couch surfing, no issues spending time with strangers. Whenever I find myself in a pickle, it seems there’s always someone there to lend a hand, a ride, or even just a laugh. In general, I’ve found that people are, quite simply, awesome.But there’s a difference between people-that-are-inherently-good and good people. If you’re from the South, you know what I mean. You know good people the moment you meet them, the second you shake their hand or look them in the eye. Without so much as an introduction, you know you can trust good people and let down your guard just enough to make room for a new experience. Good people are passionate and wise beyond their years. They’re humble, patient, generous, and most importantly, understanding.They get me. They get this crazy world we live in, how much it has changed and how much it will continue to change. They get that life is one long journey, that each encounter and each new place is just another pit stop.I’ve met many a good people in my life, but I knew that this yearlong endeavor would open my tent-flap door to a whole new set of faces and stories. In the seven days I’ve been living on the road, I’ve experienced nothing but total support and encouragement. The excitement others express about my project helps me plow through any doubts that sometimes surface in the dead of night. New friends, old friends, Facebook friends, strangers at the gas station. Everyone’s given me a little piece of magic, a little glimmer of hope that no matter the obstacles I may face, this next year of my life will bring more good than bad.The event that inspired this post happened over the weekend at the Cheat River Festival in Albright, W.Va. The moment I rolled onto festival grounds with the Jeep and Go in tow, a crowd of curious kayakers had formed around me.“Bet you can’t set that up in less than 10 minutes,” one of the guys said.“Time me,” I countered, hustling to the Go to start popping up the rig. 9 minutes later, I’d earned both the respect and the beer of the man who had challenged me. In no time, word had spread that I was not, in fact, just at the festival to represent Blue Ridge Outdoors or even SylvanSport for that matter; I was there to hang out and have a good time, one of the first stops on my yearlong adventure.The next morning, I got my first dose of what I’ll have to start referring to as “mobile magic.” Tired, hungry, and a little unprepared for making breakfast, I was slow-moving that Sunday morning. Just as I was beginning to summon the motivation to pack up and head out, one of the food vendors stopped by to offer myself and a couple of the B.R.O. team some extra fried eggs they’d made for breakfast.Digging into those scrumptious fried eggs. Photo: Ross RuffingDigging into those scrumptious fried eggs. Photo: Ross Ruffing“We heard about what you are doing and we think it’s awesome,” the woman told me. I thanked her, graciously accepting the four fried eggs before we practically swallowed them whole.An hour later, another person stopped by, this time from Water Street Cafe, an awesome restaurant located at the takeout of the Upper Yough in Friendsville, Md. He said his name was Chris and that he had two bags filled with delicious no-bake cookies and oatmeal melt-in-your-mouth bars that he wanted to get rid of.Chris with Water Street Cafe.Chris with Water Street Cafe.“I heard about what you’re doing, and I figured they’d probably go to better use with you than coming back with me,” he said. I was speechless. Each bag weighed at least 5lbs (the no-bake cookie bag probably more). He stayed and chatted awhile, and I promised to come and visit whenever I ran the Upper Yough (hope you’re open Friday, Chris!).Although I gave away some of Chris’ baked goods (seriously, if I get offered food like this every day I won’t be able to fit in the Go), the impact of those two simple acts of kindness resonated within me in a strangely subtle and comfortable way, like this was the way of the open road and that one day, I will be able to return those acts of kindness two-fold. At least, that is my hope.last_img read more

first_imgGary Blankenship Senior Editor A proposed constitutional amendment that would do away with all judicial nominating commissions, require appellate judges up for retention to get a two-thirds approval rate, and dismantle The Florida Bar has been proposed in a rewrite of Article V introduced in the Florida House. HJR 627, by Rep. Fred Brummer, R-Apopka, would allow the governor to fill directly all appellate vacancies with the consent of the state Senate. It would also set a two-year minimum limit on writs of habeas corpus and give the legislature vastly increased powers over court procedural rules. And those are only some of the changes in the 36-page measure. Bar President Herman Russomanno said many of the changes in bill are “troubling” and some of the proposals would have the state revert to systems and practices which were purposefully changed decades ago to provide accountability and remove politics from the system. “Floridians expect fairness and impartiality in the court system and their expectations are justified and attainable,” Russomanno said. “But the efforts to stampede the judicial branch and the legal profession with unwarranted changes such as those proposed in HB 627 are completely contrary to what Floridians clearly want.” Bar President-elect Terry Russell said the bill ignores several past problems with the judiciary and court system that the current constitution fixes. “It’s regressive,” he said. Tallahassee attorney Barry Richard, the Bar’s outside counsel, said the overall effect of the proposal would be to increase the influence of politics in the court system. “This resolution would set our state back 100 years,” Richard said. “It would remove all checks on the politicization of judicial selection, place incumbent judges at the whim of the legislature or any groups of persons dissatisfied with a particular decision, and significantly reduce the independence of the judiciary, a critical element in the maintenance of a just and democratic society,” Richard said. The Bar has also picked up indications that the House Committee on Judicial Oversight could consider Brummer’s bill early in the Regular Session, which opened March 6 as this News went to press. At deadline, no companion bill had been introduced in the Senate. As a constitutional amendment, it must get a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate before it can be submitted to voters next year. Russomanno also said in many respects the Bar was “stunned” by the bill, particularly in that it addresses many issues studied extensively by legislative directive in recent years by the 1995 Article V Task Force, the 1997-98 Constitution Revision Commission and the 2000-01 Supreme Court Workload Study Commission. HJR 627 makes changes throughout Article V. One provision appears aimed at Secretary of State Katherine Harris’ actions in last year’s disputed election that were challenged in court. A new subsection (b) in Section 1 provides that there must be some legal or equitable claim for a court to issue a quo warranto writ. It also limits cases when those writs could be used, which apparently would drastically limit citizens’ ability to challenge a public official’s action in court. The language specifically provides: “The power to issue a writ of quo warranto does not establish power to review any right, power or duty of a public official other than the right to hold the particular office claimed by such official, and the writ of quo warranto shall not be used for any purpose except to test a person’s authority to continue holding an office when challenged by competing claimant to such office.” The section would also allow the legislature by law to set a statute of limitation on the writs. Other sections on specific courts’ powers affect habeas corpus writs. The amendment adds language that judges may issue the writs “provided that such writs are subject to statutes of limitation of not shorter than two years from the final judgment or mandate on direct appeal in a criminal case.” Judicial Restraint Several other sections are aimed at restricting the power and activities of the courts. Section 1 would have language added that, “Subject to any additional limits in this constitution, the jurisdiction of such courts shall extend only to actual cases in law, equity, admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and to actual controversies arising under the constitution and the laws of the State of Florida and of the United States.” Richard noted that could be read to eliminate the court’s authority to issue declaratory judgments and also to exercise oversight of the practice of law. The legislature also would be given power in that section to designate that a district court of appeal could exercise statewide jurisdiction “respecting any subject matter granted. . . by general law.” Richard said this provision could be read that the legislature could assign a matter to a DCA to the exclusion of the Supreme Court. Some observers have suggested the legislature could use the section to create a statewide court of criminal appeals. Court procedural rules “may not be inconsistent with statutes in place at the time of adoption of such rules, shall be revised to conform to subsequently adopted statutes that regulate substantive rights, and may be repealed by general law. Rules adopted pursuant to this section shall neither abridge, enlarge, nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant, but additional rulemaking power may be expressly delegated to courts by general law.” Richard noted that language eliminates the distinction between substantive and procedural rules and allows the legislature to write court rules. He said there has not been any criticisms or problems with rules that would justify such a change. Dropped from the constitution would be a provision requiring a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate to override a court rule. The court would be allowed to issue advisory opinions on the request of the attorney general or governor, but opinions issued at the request of the governor “shall not be binding upon any party not voluntarily participating in such proceeding.” The measure would also limit the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to items enumerated in the constitution, including judicial discipline. Section 9 of Article V would be rewritten. Currently, when the Supreme Court certifies the need for new judges or to reduce judges, the legislature can change the number, but it requires a two-thirds vote. The bill would simply allow the legislature to set the number of judges by law, including the number in each circuit and county court. The Supreme Court would be able to make recommendations on increasing or decreasing the number of judges and also on changing the district and circuits. The proposed revision did keep the number of Supreme Court justices at seven. Retention Upped Section 10 would be changed to require that Supreme Court justices and district court of appeal judges get a two-thirds “yes” vote in their merit retention referenda. That could have a potentially devastating impact on the First District Court of Appeal and substantial impacts on other appellate courts. While all three First DCA judges on last November’s ballots would have been retained, it would have been very close if they were retained with 68 to 69 percent of the vote. However, all six judges on the 1998 merit retention ballot and all four on the 1996 ballot would have lost, as they garnered 63 to 64 percent “yes” votes less than the 66.67 required in the proposed amendment. Results from 1994 were not immediately available, but in 1992, all six First DCA judges on the ballot would have lost, as well as all five on the ballot in the Fifth DCA and two in the Second DCA. In 1992, there was organized opposition to then Chief Justice Rosemary Barkett and she wound up with 60.9-percent approval a landslide by most standards, but not enough under the bill. In addition, the other three justices on the ballot Justice Major B. Harding and former Justices Ben F. Overton and Parker Lee McDonald would have fallen short of the two-thirds vote, by one to less than two percent. As Richard noted, “Judges, who among public officers should be the least sensitive to public opinion, would be made more subject to the sway of public sentiment than executive or legislative officers.” Trial judges would remain elected, but midterm vacancies, as well as all vacancies on the appellate courts, would be filled directly by the governor without using judicial nominating commissions. Those appointments would be subject to “the advice and consent of the Senate.. . . ” The Article V provisions setting up the JNCs and governing their actions would be stricken under Brummer’s measure. The bill provides that if the Senate is not in session when the appointment is made and does not call itself into session to consider a nomination within 30 days, then the nomination is deemed approved. If the Senate is in session and fails to confirm a nominee within 30 days, then the nomination is rejected, unless Senate rules allow for an exemption. If judges find their jurisdiction and powers limited, they could become more politically active. Brummer’s bill would constitutionally override judicial canons that prevent judges from becoming involved in partisan politics or expressing their views on issues likely to come before them on the bench. The bill specifically provides, “No judicial rule of conduct or other court rule may limit the political rights of candidates for election or appointment to judicial office, including, but not limited to, serving a political organization, endorsing or opposing other candidates for public office, making speeches, attending political functions, or making statements with respect to issues; however such limits consistent with other provisions of this constitution may be imposed by general law.” The amendment, while not mentioning it by name, would do away with or substantially reduce The Florida Bar by changing Section 15. That revised section would allow the legislature to assume at least some oversight of the profession. The section provides that the Supreme Court would have exclusive jurisdiction over admission and discipline for those practicing, according to a new phrase added to the section, “before the courts of this state.” Also added to the section is this provision: “The cost of such regulation and discipline shall be funded by appropriations, disciplinary penalties, and fees paid to the Supreme Court as authorized by general law. No attorney may be required to pay dues to any organization and no fees may be otherwise assessed by the court as a condition to admission to practice law before the courts of this state. The professional practice of law other than before the courts of this state may be regulated by general law.” “This provision would eliminate the Bar as an arm of the Supreme Court and make the court’s ability to regulate [the] practice [of law] entirely dependent upon the willingness of the legislature to fund the regulation,” Richard wrote. With the Judicial Qualifications Commission, the Bar’s four lawyer appointments would be taken away and given to the legislature. Among other changes proposed in Brummer’s bill are: • An addition to Section 14 that, “Any prevailing party in any civil proceeding or any defendant convicted in any criminal proceeding may be assessed, as provided by general law, the full cost of all services utilized and expenses incurred in such proceeding as determined by the clerk of the circuit or county court, to the extent that such services or expenses are provided by appropriations, fees, or service charges.. . . Such assessments may be enforced as any money judgment or tax obligation.” • An addition to Section 3(b)(5) that when a case is certified to the Supreme Court as being of great public importance, “the district court’s jurisdiction shall be retained unless and until the Supreme Court issues an order accepting jurisdiction.” • The opt-in, opt-out merit selection plan for trial judges added to the constitution in 1998 by voters would be stricken. (That was a two-part process. The voter approval in 1998 set up a referendum in every circuit and county last November, on whether voters wanted to continue electing their trial judges or switch to a merit system. a decisive margin in every jurisdiction, voters chose to continue with elections.) • A provision of Section 14 that says courts have no power to fix appropriations would be changed to read that courts “have no power to fix or order any modification of appropriations.” • The requirement that one Supreme Court justice come from the jurisdiction of each of the five district courts of appeal would be removed. • The section that allows retired judges over the age of 70 to sit in temporary assignments would be removed. • Various requirements to hold law-related offices, such as judgeships, or elected state attorneys or public defenders, would remain unchanged except that those office-holders would not be required to be Florida Bar members. Instead they would have to be “authorized to practice law in Florida.” House bill would rewrite Art.V H ouse bill would rewire Art. V center_img March 15, 2001 Senior Editor Regular Newslast_img read more

first_img June 15, 2003 Gary Blankenship Senior Editor Regular News Board opposes ABA plan to weaken client confidentiality On another matter, Zack said the ABA would likely address issues relating to the selection of judges. It’s unlikely that merit selection and retention will be expanded, he said, so the ABA is looking at other changes. In light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that judges running for election can discuss how they would rule on an issue, the ABA is looking at expanding recusal rules, among other options, he said.Other proposals include having judges serve a 15-year term and not be eligible for reappointment; recruiting more minorities into the profession and as judges; providing nonpartisan elections and a nonpolitical appointment and review commission.Zack recently completed serving on the ABA 21st Century Judiciary Committee, that included Robert Sessions, former director of the FBI, and Abner Mikva, White House counsel and a former Texas judge. That report will be presented for adoption at the ABA Annual Meeting this summer in San Francisco.center_img Board opposes ABA plan to weaken client confidentiality Senior EditorA proposed change to the ABA Model Rules that would weaken attorney-client confidentiality has been opposed by The Florida Bar Board of Governors.The board agreed with former Bar Presidents Ben Hill, Florida’s ABA state delegate, and Steve Zack, a member of the ABA House of Delegates, that amendments to Model Rules 1.6(b)(2) and (3) would undermine the values of the legal profession. The board took the unusual step of instructing its delegates to oppose the amendments.The changes, suggested by the ABA Task Force on Corporate Responsibility, were debated by the House two years ago and rejected by four votes, but are expected to again be proposed at the ABA’s August Annual Meeting.Hill sent a letter to the Bar asking the issue to be addressed and Zack appeared at the board’s May 30 meeting to discuss that and other ABA issues.“It is my sincere hope The Florida Bar will continue to oppose adoption of the rule, specifically subparagraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3), which provide that a waiver of the attorney-client privilege may occur under certain circumstances,” Hill wrote. “I do not believe that circumstances are sufficient to warrant a waiver of attorney-client privilege and further that if a waiver is permitted under these circumstances, it can only lead to total distrust between the lawyer and his/her client.“Further, (b)(2) and (b)(3) force the attorney to serve as a ‘policeman or policewoman’ as he or she works with the client.”Zack said the issue was the most significant to come before the House of Delegates since the multidisciplinary practice (MDP) issue several years ago. He said the MDP appeared ready to pass until the Bar took the lead and successfully opposed those changes.“The proposal is an attempt to review the client confidentiality rights and the public’s right to be protected from wrongful acts,” Zack said. “This is not a simple debate, but it’s a necessary debate and whatever you decide, you delegates need to be aware of.”Model Rule 1.6 provides that a lawyer must keep client confidences, except to prevent a death or substantial bodily harm, to comply with a law or court order, if the lawyer needs the information to defend a legal action involving the client, or to ensure compliance with ethical rules.The amendments would add two new subsections, which would allow disclosure:• “To prevent the client from committing a crime or fraud that is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another and in furtherance of which the client has used or is using the lawyer’s services.”• “To prevent, mitigate, or rectify substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another that is reasonably certain to result or has resulted from the client’s commission of a crime or fraud in furtherance of which the client has used the lawyer’s services.”Zack noted similar amendments are also being proposed to Model Rule 1.13 which would allow a lawyer representing an organization to reveal confidential information if organization officers failed to take action and the lawyer thought it necessary to prevent substantial harm to that organization.Board member Ian Comisky noted the board has already adopted a position opposing such disclosure duties that have been proposed in Securities and Exchange Commission rules that ensued from Enron and other corporate scandals. “We need to stand firmly and unanimously” in opposing the changes to the ABA rules, he said.The board unanimously approved Comisky’s motion to instruct its appointed House delegates to oppose the amendments.Other ABA Issueslast_img read more

first_img 9SHARESShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblr,John Pettit John Pettit is the Managing Editor for CUInsight.com. John manages the content on the site, including current news, editorial, press releases, jobs and events. He keeps the credit union … Web: www.cuinsight.com Details Every one of us may have a different definition of success. The one thing we all have in common is the desire to achieve our own version of success. I’ve talked before about 5 things successful people don’t do. Looking back on that list, here are four more things that successful people don’t do…They don’t worry about things they can’t control: You only have so much brain power you can use during the day. Why waste that energy on things that you can’t change? Focus your mind on what comes next and leave the worry behind.They don’t care about what others think: You’ve got better things to do. Let the Negative Normans of the world live in their pessimistic bubble. You reside here and you’ve got things to do and people to see.They don’t repeat mistakes: I love the movie Groundhog Day. As Bill Murray keeps repeating his day over and over, it takes him a while to realize he’s got a chance to stop making the same mistakes every day. Just like Phil Conner (Murray), once you’ve stepped in a pot hole full of icy water, you’ll want to try and make sure you don’t ever do it again.They don’t think they’re owed anything: Other than the Kardashians, successful people usually work pretty hard to get where they’re at. Just because you did well in school or had a prestigious internship, doesn’t mean you should be handed the keys to the company. If you want to be successful you’ll have to put your head down and go to work.last_img read more

first_imgDirektor Glavnog ureda Hrvatske turističke zajednice (HTZ) Kristjan Staničić tijekom službenog boravka u SAD-u sudjelovao je na konferenciji Udruženja turoperatora Sjedinjenih Američkih Država (USTOA), koja se održala u Hollywoodu (Florida). Tom se prilikom direktor Staničić susreo s predsjednikom USTOA-e Terryem Daleom, javljaju iz HTZ-a, a s kojim je dogovorio aktivniji angažman HTZ-a, posebice kroz održavanje prezentacija na nadolazećim konferencijama, ali i uključivanjem Hrvatske u projekt istraživanja „USTOA’s Portrait of American International Travelers“.In addition to USTOA representatives, Director Staničić also met with other key partners in the US market, including representatives of the Signature Travel Network and representatives of the Virtuoso luxury travel network, with whom an action plan for 2018 has been agreed. as well as the long-term course of cooperation. “One of the most important topics of the meetings, which we did during our stay in the USA with key partners, was the establishment of a direct flight between Croatia and the USA. We are extremely pleased that the partners in this market have expressed strong support in the realization and establishment of a direct flight, which would be of great importance for Croatia, and not only in terms of tourism. I am optimistic and believe that Croatia will have a direct flight with this large and globally important market in the near future.” said Director Staničić, adding that all partners confirmed this year’s excellent results and growth of 35 percent in arrivals and overnight stays, ie the popularity of Croatia in the North American market as one of the fastest growing destinations.Dodajmo kako su osim sjevernoameričkih turoperatora, aktivnih članova USTOA-e, skupu prisustvovali i pridruženi članovi – predstavnici turističkih ureda i turističkog gospodarstva zemalja iz cijelog svijeta te renomirani turistički novinari. Isto tako, na ovom najvećem godišnjem skupu udruženja sjevernoameričkih turoperatora, osim HTZ-a, sudjelovale su i turističke zajednice grada Zagreba i Dubrovačko-neretvanske županije. Konferencija je okupila oko 900 sudionika koji su se, tijekom pet dana održavanja konferencije, imali priliku upoznati s novostima i trendovima u turizmu, ali i sudjelovati na networking eventima i sastancima s ciljem dogovaranja poslovne suradnje.Croatia in the top 10 destinations in the world according to Virtuos researchThe Association of Luxury Travel Agencies Virtuoso again this year conducted a traditional survey among its members – “Vituoso Luxe Report”. According to the survey results for 2018, Croatia is ranked among the top 10 destinations in three categories, with progress on the scale compared to the survey results for 2017. Thus, our country took a high 2nd place in the category of the most popular emerging destination, which is an improvement of one place compared to the survey for 2017, when Croatia took an excellent 3rd place in this category. In the category of the most popular international destination, Croatia took 8th place, which is also an improvement compared to the survey for 2017, when Croatia took 10th place in this category. Progress has also been made in the category of the most popular destination for the so-called millenials passengers, so in the survey for 2018, Croatia took 6th place in this category, which is an improvement of three places because in the survey for 2017, Croatia was ranked 9th in this category.last_img read more

first_imgWould you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletters To access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week.last_img

first_imgAt boxer’s event ‘Battle of the gladiators’ which was held on Saturday, 11 May, in Karlsruhe, BiH boxer Senad Hadžić won the title of the Champion of Europe in super-heavy category in WGL-MMA.In one of the main fights of the night Hadžić defeated Hungarian boxer Enyedi Domper in front of 2000 spectators.Senad Hadžić, in his career has won titles of the International champion of Germany, he was amateur champion of the world, professional champion of Germany,  and he also won many other titles and medals.He currently lives in Munich, and he’s the member of ‘Fighting Gym Asmir Burgić’ camp in Cologne and trains in Munich and Cologne, and he recently opened martial arts school in Munich.(source: klix.ba)last_img read more

first_imgThe San Diego County Police department is currently considering pressing charges against a man who went to a grocery shopping while wearing a white hood similar to that worn by the Ku Klux Klan. The incident occurred Saturday at a store in the town of Santee.approached the man and told him to either remove the hood or leave the store. The man removed his hood, paid for his groceries, and then left the store.Authorities were not called to the scene, however, they are now investigating whether or not the incident constitutes as a hate crime, and whether or not charges will be brought.“The Sheriff’s Department does not condone hate or any acts of intolerance in our communities,” the department said in a news release.last_img read more

first_img England’s Josh Hill has created a new world record as the youngest ever winner of an Official World Golf Ranking (OWGR) tournament.Current boys’ squad player Hill – aged just 15 – claimed a remarkable two-shot victory at today’s Al Ain Open in the United Arab Emirates.The MENA (Middle-East North Africa) Tour event was largely populated by professionals, but Hill carded an eight-under par final round 62 to put his name up in lights.Hill replaces Japan’s Ryo Ishikawa as the youngest ever player to win an official OWGR event.Ishikawa was aged 15 years and eight months when he won the Munsingwear Open KSB Cup in 2007.Dubai-based Hill was only 15 years, six months and 27 days old when he completed his stunning feat having started the final round three shots adrift of another Englishman, Harry Ellis.Understandably, Hill was shell-shocked at his victory. However, he also expressed a little regret at not marking the record-breaking occasion by posting a final round in the 50s.“I am actually a little disappointed with my finish because I missed so many opportunities coming in. I honestly could have broken 60 today,” said Hill who will be a key member of the boys’ squad for Home Internationals and European Championships in 2020.“I knew I needed a good start, and once I got it, I just kept hitting one good shot after the other.“I really don’t know what to say right now. I am shocked. If you had told me during the summer that I will be winning a MENA Tour title against professionals and become the youngest ever winner of an OWGR event, I would have laughed at the notion.“I guess hard work pays.”Hill’s victory comes just a few weeks after an another graduate of the England Golf set-up – Robin Williams – won on the MENA Tour as a professional.“I was struggling in the summer and then something changed in the last MENA Tour event at Yas Links,” added Hill who drained a birdie on the first hole of his round and never looked back.“That top-10 finish gave me a lot of confidence and I knew it in my heart that I would do well here in Al Ain because I have such a good history here. I just love this track.Ellis was magnanimous in defeat and praised his fellow Englishman for rewriting the record books.“All credit to Josh. He played an unbelievable round today.”Hill finished on 17-under par for his three rounds with a total of 193 at a course he clearly loves.The rising star has won the Al Ain Men’s Open for the last two years and also claimed victory in a Faldo Series event at the Al Ain Golf, Equestrian and Shooting Club.Photography credit: MENA Tour 23 Oct 2019 Hill’s historic MENA Tour win rewrites the record books last_img read more