Originally Posted by Pablo68
Golf is a gentleman's game and our scores are based on the Honor system. If people lie/exaggerate about the distances they hit their clubs, how are we to believe their scores/handicaps? Why people try to impress anonymous people on the internet is beyond me.
Now I understand why you are so adamant in keeping people who make claims of long distances and holes in ones kept in check.
For me, golf can only be scored when there is double scoring, that is, two unbiased individuals keeping your score. Archery and shooting are more or less the same, except there is a piece of paper (the target) that tells all. The difference, for me, between a practice round and a scoring round is that there are witnesses. The reason for this is simply because, I sometimes forget shots or over count shots per hole. It is easy to get messed up over the twelve minute cycle with all the shot thoughts going through my mind. I am sure other people make similar mistakes.
Not sure how other people view golf, but this is a forum. Generally, people are people.
Golf is not necessarily only a gentleman's game to me. My principle thought is if I do something, I like to do it as correctly as possible. I think almost everyone subscribes to this philosophy.
For example, if a person plays chess, and doesn't know how to move all the pieces under all situations, then you can't say you know how to play. However, there will be plenty of folks who claim to have played chess, and they play chess by the rules they know. One particular case that comes to mind: A person we knew said they played chess so he played with one of my nephews, at one point, they were perplexed by simple things like castling. They don't know how the move is done exactly, and under what conditions it can be done.
Here are the rules (taken from wiki):
Castling is permissible if and only if all of the following conditions hold (Schiller 2001:19):
- The king has not previously moved.
- The chosen rook has not previously moved.
- There are no pieces between the king and the chosen rook.
- The king is not currently in check.
- The king does not pass through a square that is under attack by enemy pieces.
- The king does not end up in check (true of any legal move).
- The king and the chosen rook are on the same rank.
Conditions 4 through 6 may be summarized with the more memorable phrase "One cannot castle out of, through, or into check."
It is a common mistake to think that the requirements for castling are even more stringent than the above. To clarify:
- The rook involved in castling may be under attack.
- In queenside castling, the square next to the rook involved may be under attack. (Kingside castling is not legally possible when the square next to the rook involved is under attack: Because only two squares separate the king and the king's rook, the king would be moved to that square and thereby be placed in check.)
So, they did not understand why my nephew could make the move he did, and simply said he did not know what he was doing. This kid competes in tournaments and wins lots of really big trophies (in physical size as opposed to major tournaments) playing chess. Yet was accused of not knowing what he was doing?
GOLF has many rules of a similar manner to these.
This is why it is really hard to police everyone. Most people have their own concept of what golf really is about. Mostly, they play by the rules they learned.
Since this is a forum, you should enlighten them/us as to the fallacy of the claims or thoughts. I agree that some claims are pretty outrageous, but we covered that in another post.
I feel that it is the responsibility for low handicappers to correct the fallacies in a manner that corrects the problem at the root. Ignorance is bliss, until someone tells the truth. Better to do it in a non-accusative manner, since they are blissfully ignorant.
Edited by Lihu - 9/29/12 at 6:11pm