My first US Open Qualifier experience

[Shorty]

Tour pro shot 88 today.

Must have been a typo, because + cappers don't go that big.

There's a bit of a difference between a real + handicapper doing that in the US Open which he actually qualified for (and on that course in those conditions)  and someone who says he's a plus handicapper shooting 90 who doesn't know the rules of golf.

Not seeing the relationship between the two players, in all honesty. And...Taniguchi made the cut. Look at the list of players who didn't.

[Lihu]

Taniguchi? I thought it was 89.. guess it doesn't matter lol

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/golf-devil-ball-golf/toru-taniguchi-had-a-terrible--horrible--no-good-very-bad-day-at-pinehurst-181332494.html

76/147 rating.

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central/pinehurst-play-more-7500-yards-us-open/

[iacas]

BTW, Pinehurst offers a great opportunity for people to actually rate the course fairly accurately based just off the yardage (it's never played at 7600 yards… the one hole was 300-ish and was drivable, when normally it plays 400-ish, etc.) because… the rough doesn't change, the fairway widths don't change, etc. The greens are a foot faster or so, but that's about it.

[minitour]

Quote:

Originally Posted by minitour

Tour pro shot 88 today.

Must have been a typo, because + cappers don't go that big.

There's a bit of a difference between a real + handicapper doing that in the US Open which he actually qualified for (and on that course in those conditions)  and someone who says he's a plus handicapper shooting 90 who doesn't know the rules of golf.

Not seeing the relationship between the two players, in all honesty. And...Taniguchi made the cut. Look at the list of players who didn't.

I think a tour pro going 88 is a lot "worse" than a + going 90 in his first open qualifier. There's lots of good golfers out there in their Saturday Nassau, but put them in a medal play tournament for something "important" on the line and they can't break 85. What did Jones say....

[Pretzel]

Just as an aside, I thought wedges manufactured pre-ban of the old grooves were legal for play so long as the grooves had not been modified. Was this just the old Ping Eye 2 wedges from the 80's that were grandfathered in? I know those are legal after a big debate on measuring the distance between grooves, but they had to have been made during a time period before the grooves were made illegal.

[phillyk]

Just as an aside, I thought wedges manufactured pre-ban of the old grooves were legal for play so long as the grooves had not been modified. Was this just the old Ping Eye 2 wedges from the 80's that were grandfathered in? I know those are legal after a big debate on measuring the distance between grooves, but they had to have been made during a time period before the grooves were made illegal.

If the USGA conforming list says they are ok, which it sounds like you know, then its fine.  Shorty doesn't know, i guess, you can have wedges from whenever so long as they conform to the newest rules.

[Lihu]

Just as an aside, I thought wedges manufactured pre-ban of the old grooves were legal for play so long as the grooves had not been modified. Was this just the old Ping Eye 2 wedges from the 80's that were grandfathered in? I know those are legal after a big debate on measuring the distance between grooves, but they had to have been made during a time period before the grooves were made illegal.

If the USGA conforming list says they are ok, which it sounds like you know, then its fine.  Shorty doesn't know, i guess, you can have wedges from whenever so long as they conform to the newest rules.

How do they know you did not purchase them used from someone used, or that they were in fact made in the pre-ban era?

If there is an advantage to using old wedges, then it sounds to me like a potential market for "Old model wedge style" modern "replicas".

[johnclayton1982]

Quote:

If the USGA conforming list says they are ok, which it sounds like you know, then its fine.  Shorty doesn't know, i guess, you can have wedges from whenever so long as they conform to the newest rules.

This is correct.  My buddy plays some old wedges as part of his iron set and used them in the Zurich qualifier. Nothing wrong with playing old wedges so long as the grooves on those particular wedges don't violate the rule.

Its not that some wedges are "grandfathered" in and some arn't.  You measure the grooves or check the list.  Its OK or its not.  Date of manufacture is irrelevant I believe.

[Pretzel]

This is correct.  My buddy plays some old wedges as part of his iron set and used them in the Zurich qualifier. Nothing wrong with playing old wedges so long as the grooves on those particular wedges don't violate the rule. Its not that some wedges are "grandfathered" in and some arn't.  You measure the grooves or check the list.  Its OK or its not.  Date of manufacture is irrelevant I believe.

No, date of manufacture is important with Ping Eye 2 wedges I know for certain (I looked it up when buying my irons). During a period of time in the 80's, Karsten made grooves that were technically illegal but fit within the rules at the time. The rules didn't state how the distance between grooves was measured, and Karsten measured them from wall to wall instead of top edge to top edge. Because of this, he actually rounded out the top edges of the grooves such that, on the face, the top edges of the grooves were too close to be conforming if the distance was measured from top edge to top edge. The USGA threw a bit of a hissy fit about it, and Karsten was required to change his design to stay conforming. However, the older wedges were grandfathered in after a court settlement, making them legal for play.

[Lihu]

No, date of manufacture is important with Ping Eye 2 wedges I know for certain (I looked it up when buying my irons). During a period of time in the 80's, Karsten made grooves that were technically illegal but fit within the rules at the time. The rules didn't state how the distance between grooves was measured, and Karsten measured them from wall to wall instead of top edge to top edge. Because of this, he actually rounded out the top edges of the grooves such that, on the face, the top edges of the grooves were too close to be conforming if the distance was measured from top edge to top edge. The USGA threw a bit of a hissy fit about it, and Karsten was required to change his design to stay conforming. However, the older wedges were grandfathered in after a court settlement, making them legal for play.

Wall to wall could give you much closer grooves depending upon the chamfer/fillet angle of the walls.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct;=j&q;=&esrc;=s&source;=web&cd;=1&cad;=rja&uact;=8&ved;=0CB8QFjAA&url;=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usga.org%2Fequipment%2Ftesting%2Fprotocols%2FGroove-Measurement-Procedure-Outline%2F&ei;=I3GfU5XXJ83ZoATUooLADQ&usg;=AFQjCNH-hlgZ8inW3x3amDKWku0bFT-Cwg&bvm;=bv.68911936,d.cGU

I have seen many new wedges that appear to have really closely packed grooves on them, are those only usable by amateurs playing casual rounds?

[atxpkrgolf]

What a read that was, glad Phillyk took time to post it and what I love about golf I that it's all unpredictable. Ghin was right that. a +2.4 should never shoot a 90. On that note a winning tour player should never make a 15 on a hole (Na) nor should an accomplished player like Weiskopf make a 13 on 145 yard par 3 ( #12 @masters one year). Stuff happens and it's what makes golf great. I do know of a guy who lied about his handicapping to go to q school and I wish I could find the articles about it. His name was Brad Tashenberg and he was a legit 12-15 who posted scores that made him scratch. He shot 96 first day and officials made him play with a marker the next day where he shot 94. & I believe he was then asked to leave. Anyway, I keep hovering between 1-6 handicapper and I hope I can make a post in next cpl years about my mid am experience. I also hope it doesn't involve a 90 or someone callin me a liar

[Lihu]

What a read that was, glad Phillyk took time to post it and what I love about golf I that it's all unpredictable. Ghin was right that. a +2.4 should never shoot a 90. On that note a winning tour player should never make a 15 on a hole (Na) nor should an accomplished player like Weiskopf make a 13 on 145 yard par 3 ( #12 @masters one year). Stuff happens and it's what makes golf great.

I do know of a guy who lied about his handicapping to go to q school and I wish I could find the articles about it. His name was Brad Tashenberg and he was a legit 12-15 who posted scores that made him scratch. He shot 96 first day and officials made him play with a marker the next day where he shot 94. & I believe he was then asked to leave.

Anyway, I keep hovering between 1-6 handicapper and I hope I can make a post in next cpl years about my mid am experience. I also hope it doesn't involve a 90 or someone callin me a liar

Kind of harsh, and I hope you don't.

You're kind of setting yourself up if you do score a 90. I do agree that at your handicap the odds are in your favor to NOT score 90 or 92, but it can happen.

I just witnessed a low single digit player shoot an 8 on a 413 yard par 4. He told me after I told him my terrible score on that hole. He hit into an olive tree 3 times after nailing a 280 yard drive down a narrow 15 yard wide corridor overshooting the fairway dogleg. I shot a 7 because I duffed two chips in a row on the same hole after making it to within 30 yards of the pin in 2 and 3 putted missing 2 putts by an inch.

[atxpkrgolf]

:))))   Well,  scratch and +2.4 are years apart.  Im not sure I have the goods to get to the latter (or practice time)

[Phil McGleno]

Thought that coudlnt possibly happen?!?!--Guy must be about a +4 or +5 but he shoots 80 on a course you can shoot 76 on? hmmm.[quote name="GHIN0011458" url="/t/75467/getting-ready-for-my-major/36#post_1018452"]Today was cool though. I played with a guy who does have a start on the web.com tour and he shot 85. .[/quote]

[Gunther]

Thought that coudlnt possibly happen?!?!--Guy must be about a +4 or +5 but he shoots 80 on a course you can shoot 76 on? hmmm.

You just search this stuff out don't you. Find some happiness in your life son.

[Phil McGleno]

Plenty happy and probably a few decades older than you 'son'. -Just not a fan of people talking out of their hind end.[quote name="Gunther" url="/t/75467/getting-ready-for-my-major/36#post_1018507"] You just search this stuff out don't you. Find some happiness in your life son.[/quote]

[Golfingdad]

Thought that coudlnt possibly happen?!?!--Guy must be about a +4 or +5 but he shoots 80 on a course you can shoot 76 on? hmmm.

You just search this stuff out don't you. Find some happiness in your life son.

To be fair ... when I read that line from ghin earlier today, my first thought was nearly identical to Phil's.  It's got nothing to do with "searching stuff out."  It has to do with memory and the fact that for a lot of people on here, at least for the short term, ghin will be known as "that guy who wouldn't stop giving phillyk crap about his bad tournament round."

[Dave2512]

Most of it was he didn't want to let go after he didn't get any support. He went over the line to trying to prove his point simply because he didn't want to be wrong. Really didn't have anything to do with phillyk.