or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › What is your opinion on the "Breakfast Ball"?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What is your opinion on the "Breakfast Ball"? - Page 14

post #235 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post


 

It means that he plays a game that sort of looks like golf, but fails to meet the definition.  I read it as if you are ahead, you can give your opponent a mulligan out of the goodness of your heart, but if he subsequently moves ahead in the match at some point, he is required to return the favor.  Not surprised you didn't quite get it as it's a new one on me too.  Guys like us who play by the real rules often don't learn these odd rules setups.

 

...unless I'm misinterpreting Fourputt, which is certainly possible.

 

All I'm doing is giving the rules answer.  His game does not meet the definition of the game of Golf as it is stated in the rule book.  I wish that there was a better terminology that didn't always get people's hackles up, but the only true definitions and answers which apply to the game are in the rule book.  If you look up the word "move" in Webster's, you get a very different definition from the one in the Rules of Golf, but the latter one is the only one which applies when discussing the accidental movement of the ball in Golf.  When rules topics are raised on the forum, the only real answer is the one in the rule book.  It's hard to always have to differentiate between Golf by the Rules and just golf, and I know that it sometimes sounds demeaning, but the difference is there, and as in this instance, that difference often has to be pointed out to answer the question as correctly as possible.  

 

When anyone mentions playing in a scramble, they usually preface it with some reference to not playing by the rules and nobody gets upset because we all know that the scramble format is not recognized by the Rules of Golf.  Yet when anyone talks about this or that rule modification and how to deal with some problem, they ask as if they are playing by some rule, yet they aren't playing by the rules, and the only answer that can be offered is the one in the book.  That means that someone is going to get their feathers ruffled since the question may or may not even apply to Golf by the Rules.  I know that I come across as stiff and unyielding, but that is because the rules are stiff and unyielding.  If you ask some of these questions of a USGA or a PGA of America rules instructor, you will get a terse answer, or maybe no answer at all other than that the question has no answer since you aren't playing by the rules.    

 

I have stated repeatedly that I don't care that many intentionally don't play by the rules, but that doesn't change the fact that when a rules question is put forth, the answer must come from the book.  Unfortunately, there is sometimes an insurmountable barrier between a discussion of the game of Golf by the Rules and discussion about golf modified for casual play.

post #236 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

Yeah, that's fair.  I also think there might be a slight disconnect and we are probably arguing past each other a little bit because when fourputt says or thinks that, maybe he's just imagining the guys who take mulligans, fluff lies, kick balls out from behind trees, take 4' gimmes, then go on the brag about their 79.  (When had they actually played by the rules and been honest, it's probably over 90)

 

Whereas, when I hear that argument, I hear it on behalf of guys who, for all intents and purposes, play the game the right way, but don't follow the rules 100.0000% (which I believe, is almost all golfers out there).  Myself, for example.  When I am playing casual rounds ... I will take a gimme from under a foot sometimes.  If I hit a good chip to a couple of inches and others are still off the green, I will either pick it up, or sometimes tap it in with the flagstick in.  If I unexpectedly lose a ball, I'm not going back to re-tee.  I don't always hold my arm perfectly straight at shoulder height when dropping out of a hazard.  I estimate 2 clublengths.  I can also sometimes get careless and bump the ball with my putter on the green and make it wobble, but I don't ever care to try and give myself a penalty stroke.  And I have a legitimate handicap and anybody who suggests otherwise is A) wrong, and B) frankly, just being kind of a jerk.

 

Like I said, it's possible (likely) that fourputt is only referring to group A above, but as a card carrying member of group B, I can find myself taking offense to anybody who utters, without qualification, statements like "If you aren't playing 100% by the rules, then you aren't playing golf."

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

Nope. Again, you know darn well that when someone says "that's not golf" what they're saying is that "that's not golf following the existing rules 100%." And if you didn't know it, you do now. So good - we can all stop wasting each other's time, right?

 

 

Uh hmmmm.

 

I couldn't care less what people do on the golf course. Fourputt will tell you that he likely calls everyone out there golfers who are golfing.

 

But when it comes to the situations like Spyder just said, the phrase "that's not really golf" simply means "you weren't playing under the rules."

 

There, I've made it all very simple.

I think it's, as I stated above, a matter of whether or not fourputt's really means "... the existing rules 100%" or if he's just being a little bit hyperbolic there.  That is where my contention comes in.  I, nor close to 100% of golfers I've ever played with, don't play by the rules 100%.  Hell, for that matter, neither does fourputt.  He admitted in another thread that occasionally he will not go back to re-tee if he runs into an unexpected lost ball situation at a busy course.  This is why, on one hand, I'm pretty sure fourputt is only referring to the egregious rules violators (my group A above), but on the other hand, if he is, then why does he get to make statements like that when they aren't accurate?

 

That's all I've always asked ... that he (and everybody else) simply get off that high horse and realize/admit that either none of us (himself included) are golfers, or perhaps just qualify those blanket statements a touch.

 

EDIT:  I read fourputts latest post, and I get it .. he's just giving rules answers.  That's great ... I appreciate and turn to his rules answers often.  I guess I still just don't understand the need to add that statement in there.  (Unless, of course, somebody asks it specifically ... "If I fluff my lie, is that technically still considered golf?") ;)  Otherwise, it just always sounds like an extra, unnecessary needle poke to make you feel good and the other guy bad.

post #237 of 358

I've always thought of my father as being a better golfer because he always seemed to put up better scores than me when we played. However, I've recently realized that he plays a different set of rules where it's ok to fluff up a lie, roll the ball around a bit. He doesn't take mulligans and typically won't take a gimme, but he'll improve his lie a bit from time to time. I still think he's a decent golfer, especially since he doesn't really try or care to improve his game, but I understand that my score means more than his because I play by the rules. I don't say anything to him because he never brags about a score, he's just happy to be out on the course and I'm happy to be spending time with my father.

post #238 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyder View Post


It's very elementary...if you break the rules of golf, you are not playing the game as it is intended to be played. For example, if you deal 3 cards rather than 2 cards to each player in Texas Hold'em, you are not playing Texas Hold'em anymore. It's really as easy as that..

 

No, but you are still playing poker. a2_wink.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyder View Post

Let's not take what originally posted out of context. I stated what my understanding of Fourputt's comments were, because I believe he has enough common sense to not care what others do on the golf course. However, those people who bring up achievements and score will be called out accordingly if they're not playing under the rules. Those who post handicaps on this site, or other sites, or turned in and signed when they did not play by the rules of golf broke the rules of golf, and therefore did not actually play golf as it is intended to be played under the rules of the game.

I apologize to Fourputt for speaking on his behalf as well, if that's how others took that, but it was my translation to put a more elaborate expression on the phrase "...that's not golf". I, like Erik, am kind of confused that people are still debating what this phrase means.

It's very elementary...if you break the rules of golf, you are not playing the game as it is intended to be played. For example, if you deal 3 cards rather than 2 cards to each player in Texas Hold'em, you are not playing Texas Hold'em anymore. It's really as easy as that..

It may seem demeaning to a weekend golfer who boasts in their club, the clubhouse where they played, or on a public forum such as TST, about what they shot to be shot down with "But you didn't play by the rules...".

 

So, the simple solution is... play the game how you want to play it because nobody else cares. Those who follow the rules, such as myself and many others, don't care what you do. We're all obviously golfers as well. Just don't talk about your handicap or your achievements in terms of score when you're playing "breakfast balls" and "mulligans". It's a fair trade-off....

The thing is, I don't disagree at all when you say that someone bragging about a score while hitting the "breakfast ball" or mulligans is not using a real score and not playing by the rules. I've said as much earlier in this thread.

 

But if anyone has a problem with this discussion coming up over and over, it's not at the fault of the people disagreeing with the phrase "that's not golf." The problem is the people that keep using that phrase when they really mean "you aren't following all of the rules." It's still golf, just not a legitimate USGA approved handicap-eligible round. That phrase is a poor representation of what iacas is assuming fourputt and others mean, and the solution to ending this "debate" about the phrase is to have those members do a better job of expressing themselves, rather than insisting on repeatedly using the same demeaning, misleading phrase when it doesn't clearly communicate what they mean. Not to mention, none of them have even clarified that phrase that I have seen, it's just been other people posting their assumptions about what they mean.

post #239 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lash View Post

No, but you are still playing poker. a2_wink.gif

 

 

The thing is, I don't disagree at all when you say that someone bragging about a score while hitting the "breakfast ball" or mulligans is not using a real score and not playing by the rules. I've said as much earlier in this thread.

 

But if anyone has a problem with this discussion coming up over and over, it's not at the fault of the people disagreeing with the phrase "that's not golf." The problem is the people that keep using that phrase when they really mean "you aren't following all of the rules." It's still golf, just not a legitimate USGA approved handicap-eligible round. That phrase is a poor representation of what iacas is assuming fourputt and others mean, and the solution to ending this "debate" about the phrase is to have those members do a better job of expressing themselves, rather than insisting on repeatedly using the same demeaning, misleading phrase when it doesn't clearly communicate what they mean. Not to mention, none of them have even clarified that phrase that I have seen, it's just been other people posting their assumptions about what they mean.

Fourputt already made a post on this page explaining what he meant. Erik also posted on the previous page.

I'm going to move on from this thread though. This topic and the beating down of a phrase and who it is intended for is getting old. We made a turn towards a debate just for the sake of a debate and it's no longer constructive or necessary.

post #240 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyder View Post

Fourputt already made a post on this page explaining what he meant. Erik also posted on the previous page.

I'm going to move on from this thread though. This topic and the beating down of a phrase and who it is intended for is getting old. We made a turn towards a debate just for the sake of a debate and it's no longer constructive or necessary.

Yes, I saw that after I posted. He posted that while I had the reply page open to type and I hadn't seen it when I posted. That was helpful, although I still disagree about his insistence that this phrase is necessary or even beneficial. But like you said, the debate is mostly pointless at this point. If fourputt and others choose to continually use that phrase rather than finding a better way to express themselves, that is their choice. I just don't think anyone should be surprised when it brings this debate back up.

post #241 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lash View Post

Yes, I saw that after I posted. He posted that while I had the reply page open to type and I hadn't seen it when I posted. That was helpful, although I still disagree about his insistence that this phrase is necessary or even beneficial. But like you said, the debate is mostly pointless at this point. If fourputt and others choose to continually use that phrase rather than finding a better way to express themselves, that is their choice. I just don't think anyone should be surprised when it brings this debate back up.

 

It is pointless, because it's mostly an argument over semantics.  It seems like a lot of energy spent around a pointless topic (like you said).  Erik summarized what it means, and it seems like most folks understand that.

 

However, if the question is "why is the phrase necessary," then I have an answer I would propose.  Golfing is different from some of the other sports referenced in that (assuming like course/tees), a score is comparable and virtually universal.  Your 84 from the blue tees at such-n-such course is directly comparable to my 89 at the same course from the same tees.  Unless you weren't playing by the rules.  Even on different courses, assuming par is 72, when somebody says their personal best is an 84, we have a general understanding of how good that is (or isn't), no matter what the course.

 

But in basketball, a co worker can't walk into your office and say "I [or we] scored 45 yesterday.  Top that!"  Doesn't matter what rules they play by, the score is basically meaningless to you.  In football, "I scored three touchdowns."  Oh, great?  In Soccer, "we scored 1 goal."  Exhilarating... get the funk out.

 

In golf, you score against the course, which allows the score to hold up whether you're playing by yourself or against a field of 80 competitors, and even against somebody playing the same course a week prior (maybe).  But it all assumes the rules of golf are being adhered to.  We have to assume they are, otherwise all bets are off.  So, for those purposes, if somebody walks in and says, "I shot an 84 but didn't play by the rules," the 84 means about as much to us as if he walked in and said he scored 84 points against his nephew in basketball today.  "Cool story bro, but I don't give a ****."

post #242 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lash View Post

You keep saying that, but I really don't know how you know Fourputt's intentions when he has never..that I have seen...stated that is what he means. He has been quite clear that people are not playing golf, and that is an obtuse and demeaning statement.

 

If you have a problem with this discussion coming up so often, you should ask those who keep using that phrase to do a better job of expressing themselves, because clearly they are not saying what they mean at all...if you are correct with your guess as to what they mean.

 



You've been here like a month.  So you are not the best judge of what a guy who has been here forever means.  He has repeatedly said that when he is playing woth people who do not follow the rules he leaves them be.  He doesn't criticize them or make a point of confronting them about their failure to play by the rules.  Those of us who have been around pretty much know exactly what Fourputt's intentions are.

 

As to those who like to analogize to other sports I would suggest that allowing mulligans would be the same as if, in a pick-up basketball game, one were twice a game allowed to just run with the ball without dribbling it. 

post #243 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post

 



 

As to those who like to analogize to other sports I would suggest that allowing mulligans would be the same as if, in a pick-up basketball game, one were twice a game allowed to just run with the ball without dribbling it. 

Man, I try to let this stuff go but people keep bringing up random things that don't really jive.

 

I don't disagree with your post at all. I may have been here a month, but that is long enough to know to read a whole thread before responding to someone. I said very plainly early on that breakfast balls are mulligans and are cheating. In fact, nobody has stated anything else that I have seen.

 

The point, and I highlighted the key part of your post to illustrate it, is that in your scenario you are still playing "basketball." You're cheating, sure. But you are playing basketball, just like the scramblers are playing golf.

post #244 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post

 


As to those who like to analogize to other sports I would suggest that allowing mulligans would be the same as if, in a pick-up basketball game, one were twice a game allowed to just run with the ball without dribbling it. 

 

Agree.  I actually typed out this response nearly verbatim a couple of times, but decided against posting it because of aforementioned reasons.  The other analogy I was going to bring up was a person playing H-O-R-S-E, and calling it basketball.

 

And, while this is heading down the rabbit-hole, I would likely say to somebody who just ran without dribbling the ball that they were "no longer playing basketball."  But I probably shouldn't have typed that...

post #245 of 358

What it amounts to is that this forum has a large membership, with very serious and very casual golfers, and everything in between.  It doesn't mean that the serious players treat every round as life and death, and it doesn't mean that the most casual players ignore every rule in the book.  It does mean that a lot of us generally try to play the game by the rules as we understand them, with intentional infractions kept to the bare minimum brought on by necessity on crowded courses.  That is going to lead to controversy when someone starts a thread asking for an opinion on a voluntary act which is clearly against the rules.  He is pretty much guaranteed to get some opposing opinions which aren't in line with his hoped for justification of the questionable act.  

 

This isn't the Happy Valley Ladies Knitting Society.  If you want a spirited, intelligent discussion, we can oblige you.  If you just want a bunch of back slappers to tell you that what you do is okay and good for the game, well you may find some of that too, but it will be mixed in with some comments that you probably didn't want to hear.  That is the nature of the beast.  

 

We love golf.  We all love meeting new players, and talking golf with players from around the world.  Sometimes our opposing approaches to the game will result is a bit of head butting.  As long as we realize that's all it is, and that we are only discussing a game, then it's all good.  

post #246 of 358
If I didn't warm up I would hit two off the first but would always play the first no matter what.
post #247 of 358

I'm here for golf but damn that sounds good. I'm doing that.

And I play breakfast balls. But I only do it when my first drive is out of play. If my first ball is crappy but in play there's no need for a breakfast ball.

post #248 of 358

BAN HIM!!!

post #249 of 358
For the life of me I cannot understand why people get so bent out of shape about the legitimacy of handicaps. If someone is cheating to get a better handicap, how does it hurt you?? In my 30 years of playing this game. There are 2 kinds of players that I despise playing with the most. The slow player and the pro wannabe rule nazi. I happen to play by the rules all the time, but frankly my game allows me to do so AND keep the pace of play because 98% of the time I don't have to deal with a "penalty" situation. For the 20+ handicappers, they have penalty scenarios on 50% of the holes depending on the course. I don't expect people to memorize the rules before stepping foot on the course or even before they begin keeping a handicap. For the sake of pace of play, I don't want them pulling out rulebooks constantly. I am not sure USGA does either. I think as people learn the game and learn the rules, their handicaps will become more legitimate. When I teach my son this game, I will first teach him ettiquette and pace of play. When tournament golf is on the horizon we will teach rules.
post #250 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltman View Post

For the life of me I cannot understand why people get so bent out of shape about the legitimacy of handicaps. If someone is cheating to get a better handicap, how does it hurt you?? In my 30 years of playing this game. There are 2 kinds of players that I despise playing with the most. The slow player and the pro wannabe rule nazi. I happen to play by the rules all the time, but frankly my game allows me to do so AND keep the pace of play because 98% of the time I don't have to deal with a "penalty" situation. For the 20+ handicappers, they have penalty scenarios on 50% of the holes depending on the course. I don't expect people to memorize the rules before stepping foot on the course or even before they begin keeping a handicap. For the sake of pace of play, I don't want them pulling out rulebooks constantly. I am not sure USGA does either. I think as people learn the game and learn the rules, their handicaps will become more legitimate. When I teach my son this game, I will first teach him ettiquette and pace of play. When tournament golf is on the horizon we will teach rules.

 

here's the thing, lets say you play a game, then you change half the rules, are you still playing that game?

 

For golfers, the whole point is to get better. The only way we do that is by a handicap. When people who play a VARIANT of golf, claim they are a handicap, sorry doesn't cut it. You pick up a putt from 3 feet, you don't take stroke and distance, you take a mulligan, what ever. Its not real golf. Its your golf. I'm not saying you can't play it, just don't say its the same as we play. By claiming a handicap, your saying your playing the same game, when your not. A game is played by rules. you change the rules, you change the game, its simple. No limit Texas Hold'm isn't the same as seven card stud. There both card games, but there different because the rules are different.

post #251 of 358

If I am playing late in the day and just kind of working on my game and not necessarily playing by the rules, I obviously will not post a score. I'll hit multiple drives often (as long as it is not holding anybody up). But, in most of my rounds, I am playing for money so the people in my group damn well be playing by the rules of golf.

 

We play breakfast balls in the winter when we are not posting our scores and the range is closed, but only on the first tee (hit two, pick your best). It is more of just a warmup kind of thing, trying to get loose. I would never do it in-season when it is crowded or I intend to post my score.

post #252 of 358

... as much as I often could use a breakfast ball, won't allow it.     I just try to lay the first one out there - my only goal off the first tee is to not top or chunk it.      Nothing fancy - just easy peasy off the first tee ...

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Golf Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › What is your opinion on the "Breakfast Ball"?