Jump to content
IGNORED

Not being asked to play through


Note: This thread is 2103 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

 

The bottom line? A single should never have the expectation that he's entitled to play through when he encounters other groups of 2 or more...period.  

I disagree with this.  If a single catches up to a group, and there is open holes ahead, the single should (and should expect to) be waved through.

From my perspective, it is simply common courtesy.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There is WAAAAAY too much focusing on who is behind and how many players there are.  And for those clubs that cling to the "singles have no standing" nonsense I fully expect them to be consistent in t

I have skipped ahead before (when possible), and then come back to hit the missed hole.

At our course, it's well understood by everyone that singles have no standing whatsoever. We won't let singles go through...period. But when somebody else joins you, now it's a different ball game. If

To some degree this may depend on whether a course can typically fill its tee sheets with foursomes or at least more than singles. Around here, I think some of the more popular public courses are this way. Usually they'll make every effort to match people up. You see them do this on the Golfnow where they'll steeply discount a 1 or 2 player tee time to fill out a full foursome. 

Some of the courses that I play will happily take your fees and point you to the first tee whoever you are, however many you are and whenever you show up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Some great response and feedback for both sides, which just goes to show what a minefield this is.  I'm sure the more experience I gain and as I grow in confidence, then my own attitude will probably change.. as yet not sure what direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate what you're saying, but I think that the concept of singles having no standing is more the norm than the exception. Now if a single comes up behind us and there's nobody in front of us for several holes, then we probably would wave him through. But the more likely scenario is that there are multiple groups in front of us, with nowhere for the single to go even if we did let him through. 

A course where I used to play had a blanket rule that no singles were ever allowed...period. It was that way there for at least 25 years until they altered the policy to only allow singles at the discretion of the pro shop during off-peak hours. There's a reason that the "no singles" policy was in effect there for so long. If you're going to allow singles to play anytime with no guidelines, you're just asking for problems. Every now and then, I'll go out by myself, but it's always late in the day and I'm out there trying to work on one part of my game or another. During those times, I would never expect others (be it 2-some, 3-some, 4-some, whatever) to let me go through. 

The bottom line? A single should never have the expectation that he's entitled to play through when he encounters other groups of 2 or more...period.  

Obviously if there is nowhere for the single to go I would expect they would see this when they got up to our tee and saw the log jam ahead. While a business is free to make their rules I would say no singles allowed is a pretty poor way to grow the game. Maybe they don't want that market but some people like myself started out without knowing anyone else who plays golf. I've met anyone I golf with through joining up with other singles or groups. Now if you mean singles can play but they will be joined up with another group of three or less if it is crowded then I have no problem with this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously if there is nowhere for the single to go I would expect they would see this when they got up to our tee and saw the log jam ahead. While a business is free to make their rules I would say no singles allowed is a pretty poor way to grow the game. Maybe they don't want that market but some people like myself started out without knowing anyone else who plays golf. I've met anyone I golf with through joining up with other singles or groups. Now if you mean singles can play but they will be joined up with another group of three or less if it is crowded then I have no problem with this.

Bang on with my situation!  Only way i will meet people generally is by playing a single, and then joining up during the round..

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is WAAAAAY too much focusing on who is behind and how many players there are.  And for those clubs that cling to the "singles have no standing" nonsense I fully expect them to be consistent in their clinging to the past and see them playing in plus fours, button down shirts, jackets, and ties.  It is either the 21st century, or it isn't.  And keeping antiquated rules like this, whose very reason for existing really no longer exists, does not demonstrate any kind of special golfing purity, it just indicates a degree of weirdness.

This is so simple I find it hard to believe how much we over-complicate it:

If there is a group or person behind you that is staying right behind you and waiting on their shots for you and your group to play, while there are open holes in front, then they are faster than you and since there is room, LET THEM PLAY THROUGH.  There it is, the whole thing in one easy sentence.  The # of people in the group is irrelevant.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Our course doesn't let singles out alone. That being said, when I was at another course where the play was not very crowded I used to go out as a single often. If I ran into a group I either asked to join them, go through or I would just play two balls and stay back behind them and just enjoy the day. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Pendragon said:

 

The bottom line? A single should never have the expectation that he's entitled to play through when he encounters other groups of 2 or more...period.  

 

The single may not have the expectation, but that doesn't make the group right or polite.  The OP mentioned that there was no one ahead of the group for at least three or four holes.  A group of people then not letting the person play through are being a bunch of inconsiderate or pompous assholes.  It doesn't take golf etiquette to see the obvious after several holes that a person is behind a group and the group are delaying them and that it wouldn't take anything nor harm anyone to let said person play the next hole before teeing off when there are no people on the holes in front of the group.  That is just group dick behavior. 

 

Edited by Gator Hazard
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I believe that traditionally golf tended to be played as match play versus stroke play.  So anyone out on the course was presumed to be playing a match of some sort.  A single golfer clearly could not be playing a match and so it was felt he/she had no standing and should not disrupt actual matches that were being played.  In the USA, we play stroke play or the player against par versus match play.  The USGA actually changed the "Single players have no standing" portion of the etiquette section and per the USGA, if a single player overtakes any group and there is space in front, the slower group should allow the single to play through.  Some clubs likely still follow the old standard of no standing for singles out of tradition.

Frankly, golf is supposed to be a social game.  Pairing up singles is the social thing to do. I like it when the course takes the initiative and slots me in with another 1-3 golfers when I show up as a single.  It reduces the disruption to larger groups from a parade of singles moving so quickly.  Certainly at slow times playing as a single is perfectly acceptable and I do that, too.  Most of the time people find it easier to let a single through but I won't push anyone ahead of me or expect them to just stand aside.

It's always good to learn something new when it comes to etiquette. I suppose we all view golf differently. I don't mind playing alone, nor do I mind playing with others - although I have been paired with some real "winners".

As far as playing as a single, people offer for me to play through all the time. I actually prefer not to unless they are really struggling. I've let faster singles in a cart play through as well.

As @turtleback suggested, its normally pretty easy to know what to do in a given situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I disagree with this.  If a single catches up to a group, and there is open holes ahead, the single should (and should expect to) be waved through.

From my perspective, it is simply common courtesy.

Reread my post to which you replied. I said that a single "should never have the expectation that he's entitled to play through". You didn't address that at all. 

In the scenario that you bring up, where there are open holes ahead, I'd agree with you. That wasn't the question, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Reread my post to which you replied. I said that a single "should never have the expectation that he's entitled to play through". You didn't address that at all. 

In the scenario that you bring up, where there are open holes ahead, I'd agree with you. That wasn't the question, though.

My thoughts still do not change.  I think a single is " entitled" to be treated with common courtesy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

15 rounds a year? Really? How come? 

Simply the schedules my friends and I keep. Maybe I shorted it a bit at 15 rounds, but most of my lot work on weekends. I work Monday thru Friday. Someone has to take time off work to make it happen. 

I suppose that if playing as a single were some big problem around my area, I'd make better use of the men's association events. You know, actually try to be social and that sort of thing. It's a stretch for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Simply the schedules my friends and I keep. Maybe I shorted it a bit at 15 rounds, but most of my lot work on weekends. I work Monday thru Friday. Someone has to take time off work to make it happen. 

I suppose that if playing as a single were some big problem around my area, I'd make better use of the men's association events. You know, actually try to be social and that sort of thing. It's a stretch for me.

Hey, I understand. It's tough when you're working full time and there are other things in your life besides golf. I retired about a year ago, and my wife is still working full-time (until next April), so right now I'm playing 5 or 6 days a week. That may change once she retires, but I'm enjoying it right now. 

I see that you're a Canadiens fan...they look awfully good so far this season. I grew up in Boston when there were only 6 teams in the NHL, and I always liked the Canadiens.They had some great players back in those days...the Richard's, Bernie Geoffrion, Jean Beliveau, Doug Harvey, Dickie Moore, the great Jacques Plante, and so many more...I know I'm forgetting a few. Anyway, it's nice to see them picking up where they left off last year. Go Habs! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Hey, I understand. It's tough when you're working full time and there are other things in your life besides golf. I retired about a year ago, and my wife is still working full-time (until next April), so right now I'm playing 5 or 6 days a week. That may change once she retires, but I'm enjoying it right now. 

I see that you're a Canadiens fan...they look awfully good so far this season. I grew up in Boston when there were only 6 teams in the NHL, and I always liked the Canadiens.They had some great players back in those days...the Richard's, Bernie Geoffrion, Jean Beliveau, Doug Harvey, Dickie Moore, the great Jacques Plante, and so many more...I know I'm forgetting a few. Anyway, it's nice to see them picking up where they left off last year. Go Habs! 

Yes indeed. Very pleased with the start of their season. Kind of a weird story how I became a Habs fan, but it was only afterward did it dawn on me that my dad was born and raised in Cambridge, MA. 

Would have loved to see a bit from that era. The stories of Rocket Richard primarily inspired my fandom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

The single may not have the expectation, but that doesn't make the group right or polite.  The OP mentioned that there was no one ahead of the group for at least three or four holes.  A group of people then not letting the person play through are being a bunch of inconsiderate or pompous assholes.  It doesn't take golf etiquette to see the obvious after several holes that a person is behind a group and the group are delaying them and that it wouldn't take anything nor harm anyone to let said person play the next hole before teeing off when there are no people on the holes in front of the group.  That is just group dick behavior. 

 

I don't understand the part you underlined.  I was playing today with a foursome and seeing that the twosome behind us was waiting for us when we were on the second green, when they approached the green, I asked them if they wanted to play through, they did and they thanked me.

However, while they tee'd off and were walking the fairway of the second, we tee'd off on the par 4 third hole.  Were we wrong to tee off while they were playing the previous hole as you said above?  That makes no sense to me, please explain.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I don't understand the part you underlined.  I was playing today with a foursome and seeing that the twosome behind us was waiting for us when we were on the second green, when they approached the green, I asked them if they wanted to play through, they did and they thanked me.

However, while they tee'd off and were walking the fairway of the second, we tee'd off on the par 4 third hole.  Were we wrong to tee off while they were playing the previous hole as you said above?  That makes no sense to me, please explain.

Probably a language barrier on my part, but to confirm what I think you stated: You were on the tee box for the 3rd hole, and asked them if they would like to play through on the 3rd before they finished putting out on the second. So they putted out, and you teed off at the same time. Then as they teed off your group was walking down the 3rd? That sounds kind of dangerous? Unless, you were already at your balls and walked well off the fairway? Even so, it seems kind of risky.

It seems like if you offer to let someone play through, you could just let them tee off before teeing off yourselves?

I know that pace of play is an issue, but not at the expense of safety?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Probably a language barrier on my part, but to confirm what I think you stated: You were on the tee box for the 3rd hole, and asked them if they would like to play through on the 3rd before they finished putting out on the second. So they putted out, and you teed off at the same time. Then as they teed off your group was walking down the 3rd? That sounds kind of dangerous? Unless, you were already at your balls and walked well off the fairway? Even so, it seems kind of risky.

It seems like if you offer to let someone play through, you could just let them tee off before teeing off yourselves?

I know that pace of play is an issue, but not at the expense of safety?

That is close but we did not put ourselves in danger.

As they approached the green I asked them if they would like to play through.  The last two to tee off from our group tee'd off while they were on the green putting.  We then stood off to the side of the tee box and waiting for them to tee off and start down the fairway.  We followed them from a respectable distance.

Done this way as opposed to not teeing off, they play through at the same speed, we finish the hole quicker (and our round a little quicker) and thereby lessen the chance of slowing someone else down that might catch up to us later (as it turns out, no one else caught up with us).

Edited by No Mulligans
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 2103 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • Support TST Affiliates

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    Whoop
    SuperSpeed
    FlightScope Mevo
    Use the code "iacas" for 10% off Mevo and the code "iacasjun21" for 10% off SuperSpeed.
  • Posts

    • It was a smashed 3-wood. Any other strike and I am at the bottom of the hill. It rewarded a great shot. 
    • I know your post was a few days ago, but one point to clarify (unless I misunderstood you): even if a person was previously infected, they should be vaccinated. From https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html  
    • So my list, in reverse order: Naga-Waukee War Memorial, 6.5 Naga-Waukee is a solid golf course that was fun to play, well kept, and had enough architectural integrity. Your interest is captured from the first hole right on through to the end, without a truly weak hole among them (with #11 being the worst, but still acceptable). The course allows and encourages you to move the ball both ways off the tee if you're up for it, it allows and hints at hitting different clubs off the tees and into the greens, with elevation changes both up and down. About the only thing some might complain about is that the 18th is a bit soft. I had about 55 yards in for my approach shot. Some people don't like that kind of thing; I don't mind. It's a half-par hole that may decide a match. Swap the 17th and the 18th and you may placate a few more people. The greens were good — they had enough variety of shape, size, and slope to stay relevant without being over the top or crazy. I wasn't really looking at this course as an architectural test, because it was my first round on non-muddy turf in about ten days given the rains we had in Erie the previous two weeks, but I was surprised at the challenge it presented while still being quite playable. A very, very good golf course that, were it in my area, I think I could play and enjoy all the time. @cipher should join. 😄 The Club at Lac la Belle, 7.0 Admittedly, I wasn't particularly invested in playing this round. It came at the end of a long week, and as we had seen the course the day before when we visited the putting course (which is fun, and which I wish more courses had, though maintenance might be a PITA), I had seen almost enough of what I wanted to see: winding fairways, tall fescue rough, bunkers, undulating greens. Parkland golf. Only the ninth hole is essentially untouched from what existed in the previous decade(s), with four completely new holes on completely newly owned property across the street. Apparently the course was often flooded, so they rebuilt the course higher up and in the process rebuilt almost every hole. Some shared similar green or tee sites, but many were totally new. Let's start with the positives. The course was in good shape. The greens played firm (I suspect they were still just year-old USGA spec greens, or at least new construction). The clubhouse and conditions and everything were nice. The negatives? It's parkland, target golf. It's long rough/fescue off the fairways. It's tall, mature trees. There really aren't very many options, and there aren't many real decisions to make. Hit it here, hit it there. The first four greens are a bit over the top. The second and third hole tee shots are, to borrow an architectural term, dumb. The second requires a hybrid or 4I through a chute of trees (hook is optional), while the third features a blind penalty area creeping in to the right-ward 80%. The fourth, a par three, has a green so over the top that almost all tee shots will end up in about four places, and if the holes are cut in about the same places, putting there will be pretty boring after a few rounds. The course wasn't tough to walk, but despite having rickshaws, the course wasn't the best for walking with a push cart because tall fescue often blocked direct paths from green to tee. A few of the holes were interesting, but none were really "wow, now that's cool" level. Lac la Belle isn't a bad course, but it's nowhere near a great one. Mammoth Dunes, 7.5 I'll let others talk about the scale and size of the place. It's right there in the name, so I'll skip talking about it, except to share some numbers about the first hole: the first fairway is 100 yards wide. The first green is 52 yards wide, and occupies about 14,000 square feet. That's 1/3 of an acre. I'll start with the main thing that knocks this down a bit from Sand Valley (and puts it below Lawsonia Links by a good bit): I didn't like the lack of separation in Mammoth Dunes. The first fairway lets you hit it anywhere in that 100 yards, and the first green, though yes it's more visible from high up on the right-hand side, also lets you hit it anywhere, from which the ball will tend to funnel toward the hole or the middle of the green. Ballstriking isn't rewarded (or punished) at quite the level I appreciate. Many players will shoot some of their best scores ever on Mammoth Dunes, which is great for a resort course — it's fun, it's different, it's BIG… — but it's not what I enjoy about golf. I don't need every good shot to be rewarded and every bad shot punished, but I want more separation between the quality and the result. This all made the architecture feel unimportant, and the results of both your decisions and your shots feel less important. Now, not every hole features this pattern, and let's bear in mind I still ranked this course as a 7.5. The second hole was great - a centerline bunker slightly offset to the left makes it appear as though a drive to the left in the narrower area is the preferred line, but that line blocks you out from seeing much of the green with a large dune to the left. The better line is to the right, and it still leaves a wedge in. Given the size of the greens, much of the "strategy," light as it may be at Mammoth Dunes, depends on the location of the flag on the green. Since it can literally be 100 feet from where it was the day before, the optimal way to play each hole can change each day. That can make a course more interesting, and Mammoth is not uninteresting. I just don't think it's nearly as "separation-friendly" as Sand Valley. Or Lawsonia. Or some other truly great 8.0-or-above type courses. Lawsonia Links, 8.5 I'm curious how a course like this, were it built today, would be received. In some ways, Langford and Moreau were Mike Strantz before Mike Strantz. When they weren't stealing boxcars from the local rail yard to build up green sites, they were using steam shovels in the days of horse-powered earth-moving equipment to really move some dirt around. Though they seemed to leave the general topography alone, they created some dramatic features with the mounds throughout the fairways and the green sites and surrounding features. The first time playing it presents a real strategic puzzle. You're constantly questioning your lines, and even with a rangefinder, you're sometimes still questioning lines when you're the third to play from the tee! Mounds from 8 to 20 feet high — some of which feature bunkers, some of which are just grass (and you often have no way of truly knowing which you're looking at) — play tricks on your eyes with depth. They obscure things beyond them, sometimes for 100+ yards. They offer aiming points. And they often appear to be much farther out than they are. The greens at Lawsonia require accuracy, but are still often large enough to allow you to play away from the worst "side" of the green. You'll have a long putt, and often one that will break 20% of the distance of the putt or more, but you can play safe. Or you can take on the hill and, occasionally, face a shot to a green that's ten feet above your head. The par threes are a bit of a mixed bag. I found the tenth to be a bit obnoxious - it was playing about 240 the day we played with tons of movement in the green. It's a tougher hole than many short par fours I've played. The other par threes, including the fourth, are solid. The par fives are great, with the exception of the 13th, which @DeadMan already talked about. Though, I will note that @saevel25 was able to get near the green in two, and keep his ball there. I don't think that hole is as bad as Daniel says it is, as I think sometimes you can have a bit of an exhilarating second shot in trying to get to within about 40 yards of the green to keep your ball up top… and if you're close, in waiting to see if it will stay there. The par fours are great. Though the first is blind, it's only blind once. The first green, even with a short iron in hand, serves as a good introduction to what L&M created at Lawsonia, as the left side falls down about 15 feet from the edge of the green at about a 60° slope. Other "blind" shots exist, but you're given a clue where to aim, and trust is important. Lawsonia will play very different in different winds. It pays to be a good putter, or to put yourself in good positions with uphill putts, as the greens, while not nearly as massive as Mammoth or even Sand Valley, have a good amount of moment to them. Despite the tenth being my least favorite hole on the course, the back nine is all played in one open area with tremendous views across the expanse. You can see (and hear) the travails of people six holes away from you, with holes playing up and down and across a valley with ripples and humps and bumps. On many of the holes, a strategy from the tee may be anything from 4I to driver. The eighth was a good example here, as you could cut a driver around the corner, lay out to the left with a 4I, or (as I did), hit a 3W to the right-center of the angled fairway (semi-blind as steam-shovel-built mounds partially obscure the view) to leave a partial wedge to the (again) perched green. How close to the flagstick do you aim when the hole is cut toward an edge? Lawsonia has remained a good challenge because of the design and architecture, as well as a few found yards here and there (like the 18th, where the back tees are 85 yards behind the next set forward). Sand Valley, 9.0 A grind in the best possible way from start to finish. I likened it to Oakmont in the sense that it's unrelenting and requires precision and focus for the entire 18 holes. You have some wider fairways, and around the greens you have a bunch of options on how to get the ball to the hole, but decisions are mentally taxing. And never-ending. The first hole is a bigger challenge than you may think at first, particularly if you choose to take an aggressive line. The second hole can punch you in the mouth quickly if you miss the green (particularly to the right). The third is a solid par three, the fourth a long and uphill par five. Five played 190 to an elevated, downhill green from the top of a dune that exposed you to the wind. Six has a hidden bunker that it takes knowledge to avoid, and five has a gash bunker crossing the fairway at a very oblique angle. All interesting, all different, and all to be played differently depending on the wind that day. On the sixth, for example, I hit 3W, PW one day from the back (Black) tees, then driver, 7I the next day from two tees forward (the "Sand" tees). On the 7th, I played it Driver, 5I, 5I the first day (Black), and driver, 6I, pitch the second day (Sand). As I'm not going to talk about every hole… I'll stop now. You'll hear a few times that Mammoth is concave and Sand Valley is convex, and that's generally true. Coore & Crenshaw let you make decisions, and if you pull off the shot, you'll be rewarded with better angles, better visibility, or an easier next shot (or putt). None of the putting greens felt unfair, but you could get out of position on them. There were places to miss, but you had to know where they were. Well above the hole was never among them, nor was well below the green staring up at a bunch of fescue grass. You could miss a tee shot, for example, a bit too far right, and still be in the fairway, but you may have a partially blind and/or tougher angle. The 17th has a reputation for being controversial, but I don't really see it. It's a blind, long, uphill par three… which plays down into a giant bowl. Get the ball anywhere in the bowl and you'll have a makable putt. The first time I played it I came up just shy of the green, then putted down into the bowl, used a backstop, and rolled the ball to two feet. The second time my ball stopped six inches from an ace to a completely different hole location. But… miss the bowl and you have to work. The 18th can be a bit gimmicky, what with the big slope and all — but it can also be a really fun way to finish your round. 16 is a bruiser… unless you can thread the needle a bit. Play right of the center bunker and you have a better view, but a longer shot. I hit 3I, Dan hit 8I into that green after similar length tee shots. Sand Valley, in contrast to Mammoth Dunes, offers a bunch of separation. The line between good and bad shots is very narrow, as are the results: good shots are rewarded, bad shots punished, often proportionately. There are options, and the wind plays a good role. The fairways are wide, but the optimal sides and angles are small. And yes, angles matter, because Sand Valley (and Mammoth Dunes), being on sand, will allow you to bounce and/or roll the ball onto greens and around the course. Tee shots will bound a bit, and roll out. Approaches can be played to release, if you like, though the greens will generally hold a well-struck high shot. Options abound… as does punishment for poor execution.
    • Ah, yes, great.  Haven't got to #19 and interpretations in my studies!  Thank you!! Hypothetically, if a player had this situation, and took an unplayable, and then dropped it in the wrong place (i.e. the fairway).  That's DQ yes? I guess it'd have to be, a serious breach, nothing else makes sense. I see it in 14.7b(1).  
    • Day 115 (7/30/21) - 9-hole league tonight. I hit really good drives, but didn't follow-up very well. Generally speaking, my short game was mediocre. Between my tennis elbow acting up and a bad scrape and bruise on my left wrist which I managed to do cleaning the garage today, I've decided to take the week off to heal, so my next entry will be starting over at 1 after league next Friday night.
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. CrappyGolfer
      CrappyGolfer
      (68 years old)
    2. Jacob Vance
      Jacob Vance
      (25 years old)
    3. jax731
      jax731
      (54 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...