Pros tapping down ground on line of putt

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by iacas

I disagree. It's not like someone can take the break out of a putt by tamping down the slope between the ball and the hole. I think irregularities should be allowed to be fixed. All of them.

Then all other irregularities on the course should be allowed to be fixed as well. I doubt this will happen soon...

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Ignorant

Then all other irregularities on the course should be allowed to be fixed as well. I doubt this will happen soon...

No. Just the putting green. You can't repair ball marks everywhere else on the course right now, so it seems illogical for you to say what you said.

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by Ignorant

Then all other irregularities on the course should be allowed to be fixed as well. I doubt this will happen soon...

Originally Posted by iacas

No. Just the putting green. You can't repair ball marks everywhere else on the course right now, so it seems illogical for you to say what you said.

Not more illogical than what you are proposing. Ball marks, divots and spike marks on the course are created by players as well. Why should you be allowed to repair additional marks on the green and not elsewhere?

I believe this discussion is not going to lead anywhere so let's just maintain our opinions and live on.

[ApocG10]

Originally Posted by Ignorant

Not more illogical than what you are proposing. Ball marks, divots and spike marks on the course are created by players as well. Why should you be allowed to repair additional marks on the green and not elsewhere?

I believe this discussion is not going to lead anywhere so let's just maintain our opinions and live on.

Simple, you dont roll the ball along the fairway. There is quite a difference between the two.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Ignorant

Not more illogical than what you are proposing. Ball marks, divots and spike marks on the course are created by players as well. Why should you be allowed to repair additional marks on the green and not elsewhere?

First answer, this:

Originally Posted by ApocG10

Simple, you dont roll the ball along the fairway. There is quite a difference between the two.

Second answer: for the same reason you're allowed to repair pitch marks on the green that you're not allowed to repair anywhere else on the golf course.

Duh.

[zeg]

You guys are missing the simplest solution. Do away with the abomination that is putting. Let the grass grow out, increase the hole to 10 inches across, and everyone just has to chip in.

[jamo]

You guys are missing the simplest solution. Do away with the abomination that is putting. Let the grass grow out, increase the hole to 10 inches across, and everyone just has to chip in.

That was what I put in my TST staff page bio. "A self-professed swing tinkerer, he hopes the USGA will soon do away with putting, finally allowing him to become a scratch golfer." Still hoping.

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by iacas

First answer, this:

Second answer: for the same reason you're allowed to repair pitch marks on the green that you're not allowed to repair anywhere else on the golf course.

Duh.

I would have expected more from you, iacas. I mean, those are no arguments, not at all.

A pitch mark just in front of a ball to be chipped onto the green is much more of a nuisance than a half a millimeter spike mark on a putting green. Just as a half-beaten divot just behind your ball when preparing for an approach of 100 meters (or yards, whichever) to the green.

Tell me, why the lords have decided that a player is entitled to the lie etc. he had after his ball came to rest but not before? Meaning: player A is allowed to repair a pitch-mark right behind his ball interfering with his swing that was created by a player in his own group, but he is NOT entitled to repair one that was created by a member of the preceding group?

Tell me, iacas, and substantiate your answer well.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Ignorant

I would have expected more from you, iacas. I mean, those are no arguments, not at all.

So you say. They are perfectly valid.

1) The putting green is the only place on which the surface matters to this degree (because the ball will be rolling along it).

2) We're already allowed to modify the putting surface, so this is just a small step farther in that direction.

Two perfectly valid arguments.

Originally Posted by Ignorant

A pitch mark just in front of a ball to be chipped onto the green is much more of a nuisance than a half a millimeter spike mark on a putting green. Just as a half-beaten divot just behind your ball when preparing for an approach of 100 meters (or yards, whichever) to the green.

Spike marks are half a millimeter now? They're much, much bigger than that. I've seen spike marks deflect a ball that's going into the middle of the hole so much that it deflects OUT of the hole.

Originally Posted by Ignorant

Tell me, why the lords have decided that a player is entitled to the lie etc. he had after his ball came to rest but not before? Meaning: player A is allowed to repair a pitch-mark right behind his ball interfering with his swing that was created by a player in his own group, but he is NOT entitled to repair one that was created by a member of the preceding group?

That doesn't have much to do with this. He can repair pitch marks on the green at any time, when they are created at any time - before, after, or during (by his ball) the result of his shot. We're talking about ball marks on the green, and repairing other damage to the surface of the green.

I'm not talking about repairing stuff elsewhere - just on the putting green. The rules that govern through the green can and should stay as they are.

[camper6]

Do the pros tamp down spike marks on their line of putt?

That's how this topic started out.

Can someone supply an answer.

We all see them on t.v. tamping something down before they putt.

What are they tampering with?

Usually you see a player lift a ball mark and then tamp it down.

I rarely see the pros repair a ball mark but I see lots of tamping.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by camper6

What are they tampering with?

"Ball marks." The question was already answered.

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignorant

A pitch mark just in front of a ball to be chipped onto the green is much more of a nuisance than a half a millimeter spike mark on a putting green. Just as a half-beaten divot just behind your ball when preparing for an approach of 100 meters (or yards, whichever) to the green.

Spike marks are half a millimeter now? They're much, much bigger than that. I've seen spike marks deflect a ball that's going into the middle of the hole so much that it deflects OUT of the hole.

Yes, spike marks may be bigger than a half a millimeter. But pls. concentrate on the other part of my answer. Why would you allow irregularities be smoothed on the green but not elsewhere on the course? And no, the answer 'ball is rolling on the green' is no good. There are lots and lots of situations when an irregularity created by man is a nuicance on the course. Why limit all this on the green?

[camper6]

Ball marks?

I have never seen a closeup.

They must be awfully old ball marks because I never see them fixing one.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by Ignorant

Yes, spike marks may be bigger than a half a millimeter. But pls. concentrate on the other part of my answer. Why would you allow irregularities be smoothed on the green but not elsewhere on the course? And no, the answer 'ball is rolling on the green' is no good. There are lots and lots of situations when an irregularity created by man is a nuicance on the course. Why limit all this on the green?

Sorry, but you're flatly discarding the essential difference between the green (i.e., the putting surface) and the rest of the course. The putting green is the only part of the golf course that is customarily and universally groomed to provide a smooth carpet-like (or, in some cases, billiards-table-like) surface for rolling the ball across. The argument is not simply, "because the ball is rolling," it's, "because the green is singled out by existing rules, course architects, and greenskeepers, and specially designed and maintained to provide a smooth surface for the ball to roll across."

So, ok, if you ignore the difference, which is obvious, intentional, and clearly codified by existing rules, then sure, the green is no different. That's not a very convincing argument, though.

[Wansteadimp]

Originally Posted by iacas

Spike marks are half a millimeter now? They're much, much bigger than that. I've seen spike marks deflect a ball that's going into the middle of the hole so much that it deflects OUT of the hole.

I thought Tiger's chip at Memorial got a little help from a spike mark, it seemed to wiggle right at one point. Certainly the spike mark that Langer had at Kiawah in the Ryder Cup was a beauty, he was effectively aiming at half the hole. Now if he'd tried to tap that down it would have gone off properly.

We should go back to stymies, leaving your ball on your opponents line and making them chip over it, greenkeepers round the world would freak out.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Ignorant

Yes, spike marks may be bigger than a half a millimeter. But pls. concentrate on the other part of my answer. Why would you allow irregularities be smoothed on the green but not elsewhere on the course? And no, the answer 'ball is rolling on the green' is no good. There are lots and lots of situations when an irregularity created by man is a nuicance on the course. Why limit all this on the green?

I'm glad you think it's "no good." I answered your question, though, as did zeg and as he does again below:

Originally Posted by zeg

Sorry, but you're flatly discarding the essential difference between the green (i.e., the putting surface) and the rest of the course. The putting green is the only part of the golf course that is customarily and universally groomed to provide a smooth carpet-like (or, in some cases, billiards-table-like) surface for rolling the ball across. The argument is not simply, "because the ball is rolling," it's, "because the green is singled out by existing rules, course architects, and greenskeepers, and specially designed and maintained to provide a smooth surface for the ball to roll across."

So, ok, if you ignore the difference, which is obvious, intentional, and clearly codified by existing rules, then sure, the green is no different. That's not a very convincing argument, though.

This.

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by zeg

Sorry, but you're flatly discarding the essential difference between the green (i.e., the putting surface) and the rest of the course. The putting green is the only part of the golf course that is customarily and universally groomed to provide a smooth carpet-like (or, in some cases, billiards-table-like) surface for rolling the ball across. The argument is not simply, "because the ball is rolling," it's, "because the green is singled out by existing rules, course architects, and greenskeepers, and specially designed and maintained to provide a smooth surface for the ball to roll across."

So, ok, if you ignore the difference, which is obvious, intentional, and clearly codified by existing rules, then sure, the green is no different. That's not a very convincing argument, though.

Zeg, you are writing things I expected iacas to write, good for you! And yes, I see what you mean and I thoroughly understand your point of view, and furthermore, am not opposing it. Yet, why the RB's have chosen this path of not allowing to repair every irregularity on the green instead of another? There must a reason... ;-)

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Ignorant

Zeg, you are writing things I expected iacas to write, good for you! And yes, I see what you mean and I thoroughly understand your point of view, and furthermore, am not opposing it. Yet, why the RB's have chosen this path of not allowing to repair every irregularity on the green instead of another? There must a reason... ;-)

Good for him. I've had little to add because he's done well in stating the obvious simplicity of the point on which he and I apparently agree.

It's up to you now to either state that "reason" or concede that you've not really got a reason why the rules should stay the way they are (outside of "because that's the way they've always been.").