celticstanger

I don't think leaving the pin in would have pro's (or anyone, for that matter) hitting their 3-to-5-footers harder. The biggest fear at that range is the come-backer, which is a product of a putt not going dead-center - a lip-out or near-miss scooting on past to leave 3-5 feet coming back. The pin wouldn't help in those cases. It possibly could on an overly firm dead-center putt, but those drop anyway, as often as not (unless the pace is such that a straight miss would put the ball around 10 feet past the hole).

I've had some nightmarish rounds of late, hooking the ball into he Arizona desert, leading to many "provisionals" and treks to track down my errant shots. Compound this with 1 regular partner who shoots mid/high-90's (but a quick player, admittedly) and another who typically shoots high-90's to low-100's AND is PONDEROUSLY slow (oh yes, read that triple-bogey putt from both sides of the hole!!!). We never take longer than 4.5 hours. Slowy McSlowpants' bad behavior is offset by the fact that both myself and the other regular of the group almost always know which club we're hitting as we walk up on our balls, but on a bad day, we three (plus 1 other) can all shoot > bogey golf and STILL not threaten 4.5. Bottom line is, bad golf doesn't have to mean slow golf. Personally, I'm fine with 4 hours. I'm not mad on getting up to 4.5 hours, but it doesn't really ruin my day, either. Once you start getting farther from 4.5 and closer to 5 hours, that's when I start to get twitchy. Sometimes I've got all day to play, sometimes I don't. It doesn't matter, though - standing around on teeboxes or in fairways for 15-20 minutes just bores the sht out of me. Yeah, I've got good company, yeah I'm outdoors, but I can enjoy both elsewhere. On the course, I'm there to golf, so please let me play in no more than 4.75. That said, I've never, or would ever, hit into someone deliberately over slow play. Hitting something with a rapidly moving lump of solid rubber, over something so trivial, just gives me the heebie-jeebies. Just to counter some of the negativity on the thread - for two weeks running now, I've run into slow groups (fallen out of position) and even though I didn't make loud noises of impatience, nor adopt a pouty "COME ON!" stance for them to see, they immediately waved me through. One time I played as a single, the other in a threesome.

Wear whatever suits you - in general, or on any given day. I personally run the gamut, with the season dictating a lot of what I wear. Last round, I went with a pair of muted brown plaid shorts and a plain white shirt, with brown FJ's. However, when the sun isn't like a fire in the face, I'll mix up colors and styles, with white, blue or even pink belts (ok, so the pink only gets out when I host my annual charity golf event - typically for some cancer research/support charity!) thrown onto all kinds of colors. Shoes range from white FJ Streets, to futuristic-looking blue Adidas, to 'sleeper-but-cool' Puma's. I think anyone judging you on your attire tells you A LOT more about them than it does you. My thing is, I'm out for the better part of the day, between a leisurely warm-up and then post-round drinks and food, so I dress for mix of comfort, style and appropriateness - never only for one (ok, apart from when the pink goes on!).

Agreed - and I suspect that this is a part of the reasoning behind the rule. A lot of rules do seem to consider practicality of enforcement.

So, if you read the question I was responding to, it was around when you would or would not mark divot holes as GUR - the context being that such a rule change was in place. So, the same subjective evaluation would indeed apply - same committee - GK would go out and evaluate. So, the same questions and qualifications would indeed apply.

Bare ground is as natural as divot holes (ok, even more so), so same questions and qualifications could apply to those, yet those are often marked off as GUR. So, to the original question - divots not being GUR is the rule I'd change. Yes, I know, I said "divots", not "divot holes", just because. If the commentators can say that Tiger played from one in the Open today, then that's enough common-use for me to adopt it.

Yep, that's the difference I'm reading. Funny thing is, without knowing the science, when I actually had the temerity to start trying to shape shots deliberately, I noticed that (hooks in paricular - that I noticed, perhaps not true in practise) whenever I aimed "just enough" to get around the obstacle (read as : tree!) in front of me, I tended to hit it a lot. I actually just assumed that the error was in my swing - which may well have been the case, but even with the perfect swing, chances are I was setting up to hit the tree! Great, real-world applicable, data!

Nope, I defined divot. I did then implicitly revise my comment to refer to the hole left by the removal of said divot, but did not explicitly reword in a manner which one could rely upon in court. I left the message in a "conversational tone". Trying again, but still not going to the nth degree (this is a social site, no?) - divot is the clod of dirt, fully removed. However, the rule I'm advocating is to make the hole, from which said divot is excavated, GUR. I am not suggesting that having to play a shot with a ball perched atop a loose impediment is rule, and that that's a rule I'd like to see changed. I get it - you disagree and you're comfortable with holes-left-by-the-removal-of-divots being part of the course. I just happen to disagree. I think you're missing my point (though thank you for assuming to know what I am actually missing and not missing) - all aspects of a course, as they naturally occur, are fair play for me and I play the hand I'm dealt. However, my challenge is having to deal with a markedly different playing environment than was enjoyed by the player who created the hole-left-by-the-removal-of-a-divot. This is a frequent enough issue to warrant conversation, closer in similarity to spike marks, but nowhere near the tangential reference to the par 4 ace off another player's putter (I'm aware of that happening once). Of course I'm aware that you know what EVERYONE is referring to when the say "divot", but you appear to enjoy playing the part of schoolyard bully. Noted. I hear your conflicting opinion on GUR and graciously accept it.

Sorry - divot = clod of dirt and grass. My use refers to the hole left behind by the removal of said divot. If I ever play golf where someone in the group in front of me erects a tree, and that tree saves an errant shot, I'll be sure to ask for a ruling - though I'm not sure about the likelihood of that happening.

That makes complete sense, to me. Ball will start, say, at 2.30 degrees right due to face-angle at impact, then draw back to the left due to spin caused by "closed-to-path club face"...

I'm not clear on what's really new, other than the correction for initial alignment. It sounds like the old SHAPE message is correct - face angle relative to path causes shape - but the old alignment message was wrong (or, perhaps is, if you need to get around a tree, for example). In other words, if you want to shape a shot, your alignment needs to better account for what you're about to do with the clubhead. When you hit the shot, the ball will head off more in the direction in which the club was pointing than the path of the swing, then turn further in that direction. It sounds like the key thought for the ley-person is: account for the initial "jump" toward the face angle? I haven't read all of the data, but would love to know if the ball actually ends up where the face was pointing? I hit a lot of draws and they seem to go where I want (within a given extent of tolerance - I aint a pro, so when the ball draws to within 10', I feel like I nailed it!), but with so many variables, I'd like to know if I should modify my aim to make my best shots come closer?

What ^ said. Although, Coyote Hills is a roller-coaster that I personally love. Yeah, maybe it is a little gimmicky, but if yo can keep your ball in play, it can be FUN! I used to be a frequent Mile Square and Costa Mesa player, but gave up on both due to pace of play. Mile Square used to be BY FAR the worst. I've played more than one 6+ hour round there. That's not only irritating, but dangerous - play there often enough and you'll run afoul of someone pissed at the pace of play and they'll start hitting into you, even though you're not out of position. Not fun. Black Gold is another fun course. Monarch is nice, but priced for ocean golf - with only 1 hole where you see the ocean (ok, so on the par 3 back toward PCH, you can turn around and see it!). I lived in HB and bought the "Coyote Card", which got you big discounts at Coyote Hills. Again, only works if you like that style of course (which I did!). Arroyo Trabuco is def worth a visit too.

For me, it's divots not being GUR. It's a condition not natural to the course - a man-made change to the playing conditions. I play muni's, country-clubs, daily-fee and resort courses and none of them are immune to falling victim to The Inconsiderate Golfer. Not only will TIG dig for oil with their wedge approach, but will do so on their wedge approach practise-swing, thereby handily adding extra divots for the rest of us to find. Ironically, the better maintained (somewhat soft - not overly so) the fairways, the more likely you are to see divots. The 50-and-in zone on some par 5's can be a mine-field of divots! TIG is also happy to add other course "features" to play from/around, such as the "Bunker-wall Footprint" (though this is visible from upwards of 200 yards away, and therefore can be played away from), the "Missed 2-footer Putter-slam Ridge" and of course, TIG's personal favorite, the humble pitch-mark. Yeah, I'd make divots GUR...

I'll raise ya - played at one of the courses at the Desert Springs resort in Palm Springs a couple of weeks ago, with the wife (who golfs maybe 10 times a year) and she's hitting the ball REALLY well on the range. We're on vacation, we've had a couple of beers, so she gets all mouthy after playing the long (for her) par 5 first really well. We're on the tee box of the next hole and she says, "How much if I get in the green in two?". Well, it's a pretty long par 4, with a big ol' fairway bunker, so I bite, "$20". She crushes her drive toward the bunker and it actually DRAWS (she NEVER draws the ball, but did so a couple of times on this trip) back into the fairway. I hit a crappy 5-wood into the hay on the opposite side of the fairway, we jump into the cart and I drop her at her ball and go to find mine. I find my ball, assess my options and look up just a second after I hear this almighty CRACK, followed by some choice words from my wife. She'd smoked her approach from around 150, hit the flagstick on the fly (about a foot up from the base of the flag) and the ball bounces hard left, into the greenside pond.

I'm a pretty decent hitter and attribute it to a "trebuchet" effect in my swing - a late release. I don't give the club much credit for the distance - I can hit every club in my bag really long, when I want to. One thing I found to be a killer when swinging hard is lifting in the swing - even with lift, I can hit the ball, but on what part of the face, and with it at what angle. Swing hard and keep your pivot-point fairly stable and you're set. Not sure if physical attributes are hugely relevant - I'm 6'3", 220lbs, workout only some, not great flexibility. I'd assume my height would be more of a factor than my strength/flex (distance from pivot to club-head).

Just wanted to say "Hey, everyone.". Joined the site to mine wisdom and hopefully offer some (what little I may have). I'm a long bomber who was once a 4 handicap, but developed a nice hook a few years back. Since then, it's been either decidedly average golf, with the rare pro-like shot, but more often than not it's hard hooks or shanks. :( Still love the game, still can hit every shot I used to - just WAY less often. But, a bad day of golf beats a good day in the office, every time.