• Announcements

    • iacas

      Create a Signature!   02/05/2016

      Everyone, go here and edit your signature this week: http://thesandtrap.com/settings/signature/.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
MEfree

What's Fairest?

17 posts in this topic

2 Situations-

1. Mystery Holes Net Computation- 9 Mystery Holes are picked at random after the completion of an 18 hole round.  How would you compute NET SCORE?

a.  Half of each Players Handicap.

b.  Strokes as they fall (i.e. an 18 capper would always get 9 shots, but a 9 capper could get as few as 0 and as many as 9 depending on which handicap holes were selected.

c.  Something else.

2.  A " Closest to the Hole " Proxy was mistakenly set up by a green on a short par 5 without any specification of whether it was closest 2nd, 3rd or any shot from off the green.  The first name on the board marked "in 2" by his name, but the name after did not (and likely was in a scramble group that didn't reach the green in 2).  A subsequent player's 2nd shot comes to rest 2 inches outside the player who likely was there in 3.  How would you determine winner?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

42? Is the answer 42? I think it is but I'm not entirely sure I'm following the post. You know what? I think it's 42 and I'm sticking to that.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Half the players handicap in response to your question 1. No idea in response to your question 2. Sounds like whoever set that competition up screwed up pretty good.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

2 Situations- 1. Mystery Holes Net Computation- 9 Mystery Holes are picked at random after the completion of an 18 hole round.  How would you compute NET SCORE? a.  Half of each Players Handicap. b.  Strokes as they fall (i.e. an 18 capper would always get 9 shots, but a 9 capper could get as few as 0 and as many as 9 depending on which handicap holes were selected. c.  Something else. 2.  A " Closest to the Hole " Proxy was mistakenly set up by a green on a short par 5 without any specification of whether it was closest 2nd, 3rd or any shot from off the green.  The first name on the board marked "in 2" by his name, but the name after did not (and likely was in a scramble group that didn't reach the green in 2).  A subsequent player's 2nd shot comes to rest 2 inches outside the player who likely was there in 3.  How would you determine winner?

I agree.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

42? Is the answer 42? I think it is but I'm not entirely sure I'm following the post. You know what? I think it's 42 and I'm sticking to that.

Bennie's corollary: "What's 6 times 7?" :-D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Snow White.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Well, I dunno, but I used to have one. It was purple and then the wheels fell off. Damn shame, those peaches were ripe! Four stones to a windmill!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Half the players handicap in response to your question 1.

No idea in response to your question 2. Sounds like whoever set that competition up screwed up pretty good.


Agreed on both counts. "b" is like winning a lottery. It has as much luck as skill.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

The guy that decided to put the "closest to the hole" contest on a par 5 should be forced to buy everybody a prize. ;-)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy that decided to put the "closest to the hole" contest on a par 5 should be forced to buy everybody a prize.

I was going to say...this is one of many good reasons to do your closest to the pin on a par 3.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 Situations- 1. Mystery Holes Net Computation- 9 Mystery Holes are picked at random after the completion of an 18 hole round.  How would you compute NET SCORE? a.  Half of each Players Handicap. b.  Strokes as they fall (i.e. an 18 capper would always get 9 shots, but a 9 capper could get as few as 0 and as many as 9 depending on which handicap holes were selected. c.  Something else. 2.  A " Closest to the Hole " Proxy was mistakenly set up by a green on a short par 5 without any specification of whether it was closest 2nd, 3rd or any shot from off the green.  The first name on the board marked "in 2" by his name, but the name after did not (and likely was in a scramble group that didn't reach the green in 2).  A subsequent player's 2nd shot comes to rest 2 inches outside the player who likely was there in 3. How would you determine winner?

Flip a quarter?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

The concept of "fair" has no place in the game of golf!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Snow White.

I am such an idiot!!! :doh:

I just realized how clever you are. :beer:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

I am such an idiot!!!

I just realized how clever you are.

Lol. Take your time GD, we'll wait for you. :-P

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

I am such an idiot!!!

I just realized how clever you are.

I see the humor in the Snow White reference, but have you figured out the humor in "42"?

The guy that decided to put the "closest to the hole" contest on a par 5 should be forced to buy everybody a prize.

The gal who does it was considering giving everyone a (likely small) prize or just drawing names from everyone on the list.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the humor in the Snow White reference, but have you figured out the humor in "42"?

The gal who does it was considering giving everyone a (likely small) prize or just drawing names from everyone on the list.

I assumed it was a reference to "Hitchhikers Guide. . ." Douglas Adams.

That makes the most sense for the solution to item 2.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

I assumed it was a reference to "Hitchhikers Guide. . ." Douglas Adams.

DON'T PANIC.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Golf Evolution
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • 2016 Waste Management Phoenix Open Discussion
      Where they let Rickie take that drop from is some BS. He should've been further back.
    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      He said something like "even your typical PGA Tour player these days would have been a superstar in my day." His point was that there are a TON more talented players who are far better than the guys he played against. I don't think it's quite as exaggerated as you might, but I also really don't care to get into it too deeply. The strength of field is multiple times stronger today than in 1968. There weren't that many overseas players. Or players in the U.S., for that matter. That alone accounts for strength of field differences. Very few foreign players came over to play on the PGA Tour. The money wasn't that good, unless you were one of the top players. It wasn't like it is today, and travel was still expensive. There's a reason players back then had to carpool, share hotel rooms, etc. Just look at the basic numbers. Once you get past the top one, two, maybe three players… it's folly to suggest it was likely that the top 15 players out of 1.5 million players is at all on the same level as the top 15 players from 100 million golfers. It's possible but highly, highly, highly unlikely. Furthermore, golf has attracted more and better athletes recently, too, which wasn't anywhere near as true in the 1960s. I get it. People like to romanticize the past. But the games and athletes move on and get better. That's irrelevant. He could only beat who he played against, and the truth is, he didn't beat weaker competition more often than Tiger Woods except in majors, he didn't win more money titles, more scoring titles, more individual awards, have higher margins of victory, etc. than Tiger Woods, all against weaker (Nicklaus's) competition. Jack might have chosen football if he grew up today. He might have been a career Web.com Tour player. Or he might have won 23 majors because he was that good and the modern advancements would have helped him that much. We don't know. It's pointless to speculate, IMO. I think the depth of field still matters and mattered in the majors. Even in the Opens. Even in events including only the top 50 players, there's still a big gap in depth from the 60s to the 00s.
    • 2016 Waste Management Phoenix Open Discussion
      Come on guys, I'm missing the 1st quarter of the Super Bowl. That being said, I think Fowler just sent his chances to a watery grave.
    • The Films and Movies Thread
      A little late finding this - X-Men, Days of Future Past Quicksilver scene in realtime.   
    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      I'd be curious to see just what Jack said. I think "10 or 15" having a chance to win for typical PGA Tour events in any era is an exaggeration of the relative weakness of the fields. Even before there was a depth of talent in the U.S. and the 'golf craze' here took off, the money drew top level golfers from overseas who were following the better money available here in tournaments and pro positions. I accept there's been a general strengthening of fields as the expansion in prize money and the total population of competitive golfers (see chart below) have forced top golfers to have more preparation and polish, but I don't think there's really ever been a lack of generally elite level competition on the PGA tour or at the Majors since about the 20's or 30's. I think if the effect of a tiny number of truly top level competitors taking on a bunch of club pro relative 'dubs' was as strong as you seem to think that most of the top multiple Major winners would be golfers from the early days of the tour. But to me it looks pretty balanced across eras. I'll see if I can work up some actual numbers. By the 1920s there were likely about 1.5 million golfers (in the U.S. alone), which is a pretty healthy base from which to draw potential 'top talent'. Total participation in golf from when Jack started to when Tiger started roughly tripled. As far as rating 'achievement' you play in the era you play with the existing disadvantages and advantages. IMO, if Jack had grown up as a contemporary of Tiger with the same advantages of technology and swing instruction / coaching and the same disadvantages of a greater number of potential competitors that they would both have risen to elite levels and would have regularly been battling for Amateur and Major Championships. I don't think the potential ranges of human abilities / talent really change much in a few generations. Would I consider Tiger more competitively vetted, yes. Do I think that means his talent level and achievements were automatically greater than Jack's? No. I could see valuing Tiger's win total more than Jack's (and certainly Snead's with some 'iffy' events in the total) because of the relative talent base depth, but not sure that transfers as readily to the performance in Majors, particularly the Opens. I think it would have been amazing and exciting to be able to see them compete at their peaks rather than a boring foregone conclusion.  
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    No users celebrating today
  • Blog Entries