Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kpaulhus

I am playing in the US Mid-AM qualifier, but I need your help.

Note: This thread is 1131 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!

234 posts / 23632 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

Kyle, congratulations for playing, and enjoying the experience.  Next time, you'll be even more prepared for the mental challenges.  As someone else said, you also get lots of respect from me for persevering and posting a score, even though it wasn't what you were hoping for.

Share this post


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

Want to hide this ad? Register for free today!

29 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Kyle, congratulations for playing, and enjoying the experience.  Next time, you'll be even more prepared for the mental challenges.  As someone else said, you also get lots of respect from me for persevering and posting a score, even though it wasn't what you were hoping for.

I agree with Dave, definitely enjoy the experience, I haven't tried to qualify in a long time, as my handicap has gone up too much.  I remember trying to qualify for the US AM many, many moons ago, definitely a different experience and kudo's for sticking it out after your front 9 endeavor.  A couple friends of mine just played in the qualifying round for he VA Senior Am, one played OK and made the cut on the number and the other (who is supposed to be the better golfer), walked off the course on 18 and NC, because he wasn't going to break 90.

The next time it will get easier.

Share this post


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

I find that when I'm nervous, putting and chipping are the things that suffer the most. So I have no doubt that if you played in the exact same situation today, your short game would be much, much better. Hopefully you can get back there next year and try again.

Great thread, and I really enjoyed following along. I hope to be able to play in a USGA qualifier someday myself. Following along with you has given me more motivation to better myself and get to that level. Also gives me something to expect when (not if! ... I hope ...) I get good enough to play in one of these.

Share this post


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

Thanks guys. It was a lot of fun, and I've gotten a lot of somewhat proud comments from friends who are much better golfers than me. They were mainly proud of me battling back on the back 9 and for posting my score. Today I went to the gym and relaxed with my wife. Will probably pick up my clubs again Thursday and get ready for next week. 

Share this post


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

1 hour ago, kpaulhus said:

Today I went to the gym and relaxed with my wife.

Does not compute.

42 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Congrats on getting out there in a big qualifier like that.  :beer:

If this game was easy, they'd call it tennis!  ;-)

Ha!  I'd vote for bowling in place of tennis though. :P

Share this post


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

1 minute ago, iacas said:

Maybe he just watched his wife work out.

She does that, you know. ;-)

Lol, that would make more sense.  I was picturing him "relaxing" on a treadmill or something.

Share this post


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

4 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Lol, that would make more sense.  I was picturing him "relaxing" on a treadmill or something.

I walk/jogged the indoor track while she trained legs for moral support. 

Share this post


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

12 minutes ago, kpaulhus said:

I walk/jogged the indoor track while she trained legs for moral support. 

So she worked out and you got the benefit :dance:

Seriously though, proud that you stuck it out after the front 9 and came back to play well on the back 9.  At least you now have a better idea of what you need to do for the next time you go the tourney.  I would expect around a par score would be needed to qualify.

Those two big blow up holes killed your card no doubt.  Otherwise you could have been looking at scoring around 80 or bit less.

Look forward to the next tournament you take part in

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kyle, congrats for fighting through and posting a good score. The only experience I have to compare is playing in a "shamble" outing at a local country club last year. This is the hardest golf course I have ever played in my life! The greens drove everyone in my foursome crazy! It was like nothing I'd ever experienced before, and I've played some nice courses! Just reinforced the idea that to play golf at that level may be the hardest sporting endeavor of all!

Share this post


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

On August 8, 2016 at 3:42 PM, kpaulhus said:

Getting frustrated I hacked it out past the flag and it rolled 30 ft away. 3 putts later I carded an 8. I was rushing, just didn't think, whatever you want to call it, bran fart. Dumb. 

Yes it was.

As I'm sure you know, you cant lose your composure out there. That hole should have been no worse than a 5.  But like you said, it was a learning experience and you had fun. It seems you made some other mental and course management errors, but those sort themselves out with experience.  Competition golf on the national level is mostly course management and putting, IMO. The US open quail earlier this year is the only USGA event I've participated in over the last 12 months, and i was surprised how rusty my mental game was in that round. Its something that needs to be honed just as much as the swing for a tournament player. You'll know better for next time and you'll get that calm thing that happens. I cant explain it. 

Welcome to the club! :beer: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 8/9/2016 at 8:27 PM, kpaulhus said:

 

While many here are applauding Kyle for his efforts in this event, the reality is, as bkuehn1952 pointed out earlier, that he really was in a bit over his head here. The fact that he finished 40th out of the 43 that tried to qualify last Monday in Fayetteville pretty much tells us all we need to know. I'm sure this was a great learning experience for Kyle, but there were clearly warning signs noticeable as he approached the qualifier.

As one who's been the chairman of the handicap Committee at my club for the past 5 years, I've never seen anyone's index drop from 8.6 to 2.7 in just 60 days...not even close. A reduction such as that can only be described as miraculous, almost unbelievable. A check with my regional golf association confirms that description. But then, after this amazingly impressive improvement which allowed him to qualify to play in the U.S. Mid-Am, Kyle has played quite poorly since then, to say the least. In his past 20 posted scores, 14 of which were at his home course, 15 were in the 80's or higher, culminated by his 88 in the Mid-Am qualifier last Monday.   

What's my point? Who knows? But every year we see a bunch of guys with low handicaps shooting scores in the 80's and 90's in events where we'd expect to see much lower scores than that. I'm sure that all of them are good guys...and, at least at their home clubs, good players...but perhaps they just don't know their limitations.       

Share this post


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

26 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

While many here are applauding Kyle for his efforts in this event, the reality is, as bkuehn1952 pointed out earlier, that he really was in a bit over his head here.

Why are those mutually exclusive?

26 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

What's my point? Who knows?   

OK...then why post this? It seems unnecessarily antagonistic if you're not even trying to make a point.

27 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

but perhaps they just don't know their limitations.       

Are you suggesting he shouldn't have even played? That's f--king stupid. Should the athletes from small countries not even show up at the Olympics because they lose to the US? 

It's not like he was posting for weeks about how he wanted to win and shoot a 68 or something.

Anyway, this post just seems petty.

Share this post


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

32 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

OK...then why post this? It seems unnecessarily antagonistic if you're not even trying to make a point.

I feel like his point was to insinuate that Kyle cheated (in getting his handicap low enough) just to get into the tournament.

Share this post


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

1 hour ago, Hardspoon said:

Why are those mutually exclusive?

OK...then why post this? It seems unnecessarily antagonistic if you're not even trying to make a point.

Are you suggesting he shouldn't have even played? That's f--king stupid. Should the athletes from small countries not even show up at the Olympics because they lose to the US? 

It's not like he was posting for weeks about how he wanted to win and shoot a 68 or something.

Anyway, this post just seems petty.

Hey, I'm just pointing out facts. It just seems curious that a guy who's been fluctuating between a 7 and a 9 handicap for most of the past year miraculously jumps to a 3 (2.7 index) in 60 days...then, once he's reached his goal, all of a sudden he has a hard time breaking 80, even on his home course, and beats all of 3 guys at the qualifier. It just seems a bit curious. 

 

 

Share this post


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

1 hour ago, iacas said:

I feel like his point was to insinuate that Kyle cheated (in getting his handicap low enough) just to get into the tournament.

 

7 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

Hey, I'm just pointing out facts. It just seems curious that a guy who's been fluctuating between a 7 and a 9 handicap for most of the past year miraculously jumps to a 3 (2.7 index) in 60 days...then, once he's reached his goal, all of a sudden he has a hard time breaking 80, even on his home course, and beats all of 3 guys at the qualifier. It just seems a bit curious. 

 

 

Let's face it, if it were anyone other than someone well known on this site, the question would have been raised long ago.

Share this post


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

1 minute ago, David in FL said:

Let's face it, if it were anyone other than someone well known on this site, the question would have been raised long ago.

So? He is well known. Are you insinuating the same thing?

Share this post


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

Note: This thread is 1131 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.

Sign in to follow this  



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2019 TST Partners

    PING Golf
    FlightScope Mevo
  • Posts

    • I thought about this a while, and then had an epiphany last night.  Without a perfect test, the answer is almost definitely no. It's a fairly simple statistical calculation called Bayes' Theorem. The end result is that you'll end up preventing more people from driving when they aren't drunk than preventing drunk drivers. I'm going to plug in numbers, but since I'm (likely correctly!) assuming drunk driving is a rare event, the numbers don't really matter that much. I'm also going to assume the test is extremely accurate. Let's say that in 1/10,000 car trips, the driver is too drunk to legally drive. This is probably an underestimation by a factor of 100, if not more, if you think about how many car trips there are in a day. Let's assume that the when the test is positive, the driver is drunk 99.9% of the time. And then assume that when the test is negative, the driver is sober 99.9% of the time (in other words, if the test is negative, the driver is drunk 0.1% of the time). We can use this to plug in probabilities for each event. Probability that a driver is drunk: .0001 Probability that a driver is sober: .9999 Probability that a drunk driver gets a positive test: .999 Probability that a drunk driver gets a negative test: .001 Probability that a sober driver gets a positive test: .001 Probability that a sober driver gets a negative test: .999 Bayes' Theorem applies here. It says: The probability that someone is drunk driver given a positive test is equal to the probability of a drunk driver gets a positive test times the probability of a drunk driver; that divided by the following: the probability of a drunk getting a positive test times probability of a drunk driver plus the probability of sober driver getting a positive test times the probability of a sober driver. In mathematic terms (DD=drunk driver; SD = sober driver; + = positive test): P(DD | +) = (P(+ | DD)*P(DD))/((P+ | DD)*P(DD)+P(+ | SD)*P(SD)) Plug in the numbers: P(DD | +) = ((.999)*(.0001))/((.999)*(.0001)+(.001)*(.9999)) P(DD | +) = .0908 In other words, the probability of a drunk driver given a positive test is only 9%. Meaning that out of a 100 people that test positive under this test, 91 of them would actually be sober. Because the test is imperfect and drunk driving is rare, it's going to impact more sober drivers than drunk drivers. Even if the test is 99.99% accurate and as a false positive rate of 0.01%, the probability of a drunk driver given a positive test is only 50%. Note that I'm assuming that 1/10,000 car trips is one by a drunk driver. If you assume 1/100,000 car trips are by a drunk driver, the probability of a drunk driver given a positive test is 0.9%. (You can also use this calculate to find out the odds that a drunk driver will have a negative test, but I have other stuff to do now...) So, without a nearly perfect test, it's a bad idea for the entire population. If drunk drivers were more frequent, then it would make more sense. Hence, it makes sense for someone who is more likely to drive drunk, and why the current policy probably makes sense. 
    • Hey Ben, good to see you’re still around!   I remember those irons. They’re beautiful! Sorry, I can’t help with the driver though…
    • Sometimes this is called a Telehandler, and sometimes its called a Rough Terrain Fork Lift. It all depends on where you live. 
    • Dragging the handle without the correct wrist movements to go with it can lead to an open clubface at impact. But without a video it's hard to determine the underlying cause of your problem.
    • I'd go with this system over either of those. I have seen automatic braking systems malfunction before and it turns catastrophic in an instant. The incredibly unfortunate part is that automatic braking systems also have a disturbingly high number of ways they can be fooled. The two I have seen personally were leaves covering up the sensor (slammed the brakes on someone in town and caused a collision) and bugs from I-70 covering the sensor (the car locked up and the brakes remained engaged until the sensor covering could be cleaned). As far as GPS-enforced speed limits, this also introduces danger on the roads. It prevents drivers from making effective evasive maneuvers when driving at the speed limit. Malfunctions for this system would also be incredibly dangerous, considering the number one cause of traffic accidents is a differential in speed between the two cars that collided. If one car is limited to 10mph under the speed limit because their GPS glitched out then they just became a sitting duck on the road, though not as bad as the automatic braking malfunction. I'm fine with mandatory safety measures that don't risk lives compared to the alternative of not having them, such as seat belts and air bags. If those fail you may die, but if they fail you are no worse off than you would have been if the safety measures were never installed. I draw the line at mandatory safety measures that will actively risk your safety or life when they fail. Automatic braking systems that will slam the brakes in highway traffic. GPS-enforced speed limits that can hamper evasive maneuvers and cause the same symptoms as automatic braking system failures (if an error displays a limit lower than the true limit). And yes, mandatory BAC interlock devices for law-abiding citizens that can leave them stranded and stuck with a very costly repair bill in the best case scenario and death in the worst case scenario. If we want to talk about personal anecdotes about why it's incredibly important to be able to start you vehicle at any time, I've got the perfect example of how this can risk lives in real scenarios that actually happen. When I was 17 I took the bus with my friends down to the annual Denver Avalanche game and we hung out at the 16th Street Mall afterwards until we caught the last bus back to where our cars were parked. Having parked in opposite corners we parted ways getting off the bus and went to our cars, my friends having no issues driving home. I, on the other hand, had some trouble with starting my vehicle. You see that year the temperature was 15 degrees below zero and my car was an old (1979) Mercedes 240D diesel. Diesel engines don't particularly like the cold, so I cycled the glow plugs several times before trying to start. No dice, so I repeated that. This went on until my car battery died at around 2 AM, and the worst part of it was that stupidly I was only wearing jeans, a t-shirt, and a sweatshirt with no jacket or coat. The buses had finished their schedules and the park and ride was empty (I was the last car) in the middle of nowhere without areas I could take shelter nearby. I was lucky to have a mylar blanket and a comforter in the trunk of my car that I kept there only because my Grandpa insisted I'd need them if I was ever stranded in the cold. I wasn't able to get assistance at my location until 5:30 that morning because it was located in the mountain, a lovely cell phone dead zone. 3.5 hours spent in -15 degree weather with only jeans and a sweatshirt. Even sitting in my car without exposure to wind I would have risked frostbite in 30 minutes or less, and that temperature presents a high risk of hypothermia even with proper winter clothing. While wearing winter clothing at that temperature you'll lose one degree of core body temperature about every 30 minutes, sooner if you have no hat. Below 95 degrees (2 hours) is the beginning of hypothermia, below 93 degrees (3 hours) is when amnesia sets in. Profound hypothermia is 90 degrees (4.5 hours) and you'll find yourself no longer even shivering to keep warm. At 86 degrees (6.5 hours) your heart starts to pump arrhythmically. At 85 degrees (7 hours) you'll rip off your clothes for your final minutes of life. Those times are for proper winter clothing. When an ignition interlock device fails, it WILL kill people in the mountains every single year. People who went camping, skiing, hiking, or hunting and get back to their car in the evening only to have it refuse to start. Cell service is sparse at best in these areas, meaning only those prepared with extra blankets/gear and the ability to start fires will survive through the night without heat from their vehicle. I say when, not if, because the failure rate will be above 0%. 15 million new cars are sold each year, and if the failure rate is 0.01% annually then you'd see 1,500 failures in the first year, growing by another 1,500 every year and providing 1,500 more opportunities to kill in either what was described or other scenarios. This is exactly why using emotional arguments is dumb, because realistically the number of deaths would be small but a personal anecdote carries additional weight. The point is that any deaths that directly result from a safety device are unacceptable even if that safety device may save lives in other circumstances. Trading lives of innocent and law-abiding citizens because of a small number of criminals is morally reprehensible on every level.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Edsland
      Edsland
      (65 years old)
    2. KingHack82
      KingHack82
      (37 years old)
    3. snowbeast
      snowbeast
      (32 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...