hopefulhacker

Apologies on so many accounts. I got carried away hammering with all the slamming of doors that was going on. And I was wrong to think it this was a discussion rather than a task to sway your opinion. I'm not trying to sway your opinion... I'm hammering away saying I don't agree with it

The discussion is ALSO about changing a rule of the game.... which would surely warrant a holistic approach it.

Yes, lots of data, the only problem is deciding on which course of the 1000's that converted all their bunkers into water hazards to use (slight hint of sarcasm) Of course there is no data to show this to be true. I am using Erik's workings, you had no problem using these workings yourself. Ball out of bunker: 1.75 Ball into water hazard (formerly bunker) : 2.5 The 2.5 being the penalty stroke and the 1.5 used for greenside rough (after drop) So without asking my local course to do me a favour and convert there bunkers to water hazards... yes, scores would go up!

We have plenty of similar bunkers in Ireland. ;) Third Argument: The proposed change seeks some kind of "fairness" between different hazards but this is ONLY after an unplayable lie is brought into the equation. The proposal is flawed if it seeks parity in punishment from different dangers/hazards BUT nit picks when it wants this fairness. If you filled up all the bunkers on a course with water and red staked them, then scores are going to be higher than if they were left as bunkers. Thus, on the whole. A bunker is less penal than a water hazard. Fourth Argument: The argument for the rule change is based on the premise that "bunkers suck".... Really..... It shows a lack of respect for a key and fundamental area of this game. I would have to challenge you and say that I think you may be too caught up in teaching other areas & skills of the game (very well I may add) that you are almost "dumbing down" bunker play, possibly because it is not an area of your teaching skill set. Bunker play deserves more respect than you are giving it.

Using your "here's some basic math" formula. How do you address the unfairness of a scenario where Player A enters bunker, good lie : 1.75 Player B enters water hazard but ball has held up on dry land : 1.5 ? Both hazards but the balance or fairness you want isn't there Let's call it a day and say that a ball is as likely to plug into a lip of a bunker as it is to cling onto the dry margin of a water hazard.

The old adage "Hard cases make bad law" comes to mind here. Rather than having to argue for the retention of it, what's the real substantial argument for getting rid of it? Bunkers are a unique feature they are not the same as water hazards or bushes. Why should they have the same relief? People should be aware that it is a "drop" within the bunker, if you're getting a severely plugged lie from a drop..... then give arm day at the gym a miss ;)

Ah ok, it read to me that you bought into their "winter rules". They should rename it "Winner Rules" because with that much cheating, you can't lose ;)

I'm betting the OP is still out on the course :)

You'll be surprised with your lack of knowledge of winter rules too Winter Rules are local rules employed during adverse weather conditions in order to protect the course... there can be many variations but the club will always list what makes up the local "winter" rule whenever the club deems them in place. The most common winters rules are Lift, clean and place on fairways within six inches Placing in the rough Bunkers out of play etc Routinely taking drops for OB and lost balls is certainly not winter rules...They are playing No Rules....

Out of interest, how many groups did you let through during the round?

One of my first rounds playing and standing on the Par 3, I picked my 9i out of the bag (thinking it was a 6i) Hit it as well as I could and was delighted with myself as I grabbed my tee from the ground. Looked up to see my playing partners looking on quite puzzled.... I turned my attention back to the ball and watched as it landed 35 yards short.... WTF was my reaction, I slowly grabbed the club head to find out what I had just hit An embarrassing walk followed as we all laughed on our way to the ball. "The best thing about it was the sheer delight on your face and your newbie cockiness as you reached for the tee.... we knew it was short as soon as you hit it" was ringing in my eyes as I stood over the second shot. So my worst moment was followed by my best.... I chipped my approach, one bounce and straight in the hole.... As it dropped in, I turned to the group and said, I got the right club that time Think it was my first birdie too!

If going for the green in 2 then I see no real advantage to taking a long iron of the tee. It only introduces more trouble. It'd seems like only a 9i if you play to the start of the fairway (or short) for tee shot and then maybe a wedge over water to the green. As long as you've got the distance correct both shots offer plenty of margin for error right & left. But I'd be taking out the hybrid I'm afraid :)

On that, I think there are two types of golfer that play without a DMD The first type is the guy that has never used a DMD all his life, and he is well used to reading the course and causes no delays... The other type is that guy who realises on the 1st hole they have left their watch/laser/rangerfinder at home PANIC!!!!! It is amazing how dependent and reliant we become on them

I'm offering my opinion on a forum, I'm not making it my business what is "allowed" of not. My opinion is that Lasers are being bought due to their increased accuracy. My experience is that lasers cause more delay than GPS watches or rangefinders. My conculsion is that if you're game isn't good enough for the increased accuracy to matter, then a laser is a "waste of time" on both accounts. Re the highlighted part, that is my thinking, I'm addressing that, you are/were obviously of an ability for it to become useful.