or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by CanuckAaron

Thanks for the insult, it is greatly appreciated.   Throughout history golf has had to make "special allowances" for some reason or another because the rules at the time excluded people. If someone is unable to compete under the current rules and there are no "special allowances" then you are definitely barring someone from competing. 
Jim Nantz is a robot IMO, so boring. I love McCord, he says some odd things at times but he is hilarious. Him and Feherty years ago on Tiger Woods PGA Tour video game (not sure what year) were great. 
Policies are rules.  As for the bold I agree with that but my original post in response to sacm3bill was because he suggested that rules are absolute which is obviously not the case.       It makes perfect sense, you suggested that people with any type of disability should be barred from competing if they are unable to compete under the current rules and the PGA Tour and/or Supreme Court should not intervene. Throughout golf's history many groups of people have been...
I second that one. 
    I never said race was a requirement in the Rules of Golf, we were discussing golf at the highest level and for several decades the PGA had a rule that excluded players that were not white.  Here is a link: http://www.worldgolfhalloffame.org/hof/member.php?member=1105     The reason I brought it up was to demonstrate how rules change and adapt as people's perceptions change and adapt over time. Rules are not rigid objective "truths" they change over time, even in golf....
     How is excluding people because of a disability not discrimination? As for the yips comment that is why the Tour and maybe the Supreme Court need to assess the validity of an individual's claim. According to your post it should not even be considered because they can't perform within the rules.       My point had more to do with your position that if it is against the rules it must be excluded. You said that only those who can play within the rules should be allowed...
     I like Faldo, Chamblee, Miller, McCord and Feherty. They say things that need to be said and aren't afraid of hurting anybody's feelings plus they make the analysis a lot more entertaining than it otherwise would be. While I am not sure that your playing record necessarily dictates what you can say if it does, Faldo can say whatever he wants about Vijay. Gary McCord on Feherty (Talk Show/Interview Special) is worth watching if you have not seen it, it may change...
That thread is locked.   Whose job would it be? Are we to accept that at the highest levels of sport discrimination is acceptable as long as it in the rules? Using that logic, all professional golfers would still be white, no Tiger Woods. 
     No I live a long way away from Vancouver. You missed my point entirely. I was not sticking with or up for anyone, I was pointing out that he was promoting the very same thing he was arguing against. You cannot chastise the industry because it makes claims about making people better golfers and then shortly there after state that your product will make the reader a better golfer, that is fallacious.       How do you know the foundries are inferior?  Or the shafts are...
I never said Palmer was known more for his looks just that it was an important factor in his success. However I should also add that he wrote the book on interacting with fans.      I do not believe that Jack played against better competitors, it was just that there was a handful of players that were far superior to everyone else whereas nowadays half the field or more has a chance to win any event especially at the majors when the best of the best in the world all show...
New Posts  All Forums: