CanuckAaron

Thanks for the insult, it is greatly appreciated. Throughout history golf has had to make "special allowances" for some reason or another because the rules at the time excluded people. If someone is unable to compete under the current rules and there are no "special allowances" then you are definitely barring someone from competing.

Jim Nantz is a robot IMO, so boring. I love McCord, he says some odd things at times but he is hilarious. Him and Feherty years ago on Tiger Woods PGA Tour video game (not sure what year) were great.

Policies are rules. As for the bold I agree with that but my original post in response to sacm3bill was because he suggested that rules are absolute which is obviously not the case. It makes perfect sense, you suggested that people with any type of disability should be barred from competing if they are unable to compete under the current rules and the PGA Tour and/or Supreme Court should not intervene. Throughout golf's history many groups of people have been excluded from playing at the highest level because they were unable to compete under the rules of that time. I am not suggesting they need to allow everyone to compete no matter what, simply that an absolutist stance as it concerns the rules of golf completely ignores the history of golf and the rules for competing at the highest levels.

I second that one.

I never said race was a requirement in the Rules of Golf, we were discussing golf at the highest level and for several decades the PGA had a rule that excluded players that were not white. Here is a link: http://www.worldgolfhalloffame.org/hof/member.php?member=1105 The reason I brought it up was to demonstrate how rules change and adapt as people's perceptions change and adapt over time. Rules are not rigid objective "truths" they change over time, even in golf. I was not suggesting that the current rules need to change, simply that there needs to be an avenue for change.

How is excluding people because of a disability not discrimination? As for the yips comment that is why the Tour and maybe the Supreme Court need to assess the validity of an individual's claim. According to your post it should not even be considered because they can't perform within the rules. My point had more to do with your position that if it is against the rules it must be excluded. You said that only those who can play within the rules should be allowed to compete. There was a time when race was a requirement within the rules. It is a dangerous position to take that only those who are deemed acceptable by current standards should be allowed to play without consideration for amending the rules. Whether this applies to Casey Martin I don't know. However I am not so quick to completely discount all of those who may have a legitimate disability from participating at the highest levels of sport because it does not fall within the rules.

I like Faldo, Chamblee, Miller, McCord and Feherty. They say things that need to be said and aren't afraid of hurting anybody's feelings plus they make the analysis a lot more entertaining than it otherwise would be. While I am not sure that your playing record necessarily dictates what you can say if it does, Faldo can say whatever he wants about Vijay. Gary McCord on Feherty (Talk Show/Interview Special) is worth watching if you have not seen it, it may change your opinion about both of them. I do Miss Ken Venturi.

That thread is locked. Whose job would it be? Are we to accept that at the highest levels of sport discrimination is acceptable as long as it in the rules? Using that logic, all professional golfers would still be white, no Tiger Woods.

No I live a long way away from Vancouver. You missed my point entirely. I was not sticking with or up for anyone, I was pointing out that he was promoting the very same thing he was arguing against. You cannot chastise the industry because it makes claims about making people better golfers and then shortly there after state that your product will make the reader a better golfer, that is fallacious. How do you know the foundries are inferior? Or the shafts are inferior? Because a clubmaker who sells clubs tells you they are? If you are going to examine a topic objectively and critically, it has to include all of the relevant literature not just the part you do not agree with. Even if we forget the irony in his argument and consider what he is saying at face value I am not so sure that you can compare a custom set of clubs built by Wishon which I am betting will cost you anywhere from 1500-3000 dollars to something worth half of that, it is common sense that the tolerances for manufacturing will be greater, they have to be. For the record I am not saying that Wishon is wrong or that I don't agree with him but the irony of what he was saying needed to be pointed out.

I never said Palmer was known more for his looks just that it was an important factor in his success. However I should also add that he wrote the book on interacting with fans. I do not believe that Jack played against better competitors, it was just that there was a handful of players that were far superior to everyone else whereas nowadays half the field or more has a chance to win any event especially at the majors when the best of the best in the world all show up to play. In either case, like you said there is no way of knowing.

Arnold did a lot for golf for the middle class but Tiger's reach stretched across social class, race and ethnic boundaries on a global scale (which no doubt had to do with the state of modern communication). Tiger brought golf to inner cities and countries around the world that had never heard of golf. Arnold may have done that for a certain population but because of our residence in North America we tend to overestimate his effect on golf. Not to mention Palmer never dominated the way Tiger did. Arnold was as famous for how he looked as he was for golf.

You guys do realize the irony in that article? Wishon is criticizing golf club manufacturers for making claims and selling golf clubs and a few lines down he states that only a club fitter (which he happens to be) can get you the proper clubs which is another type of claim which serves to make you buy golf clubs from a professional fitter. There is little difference other than semantics from what he is arguing against and what he is proposing.

Which wedge do you want to bend because according to the specs none of them are 56 degrees. See: http://www.ping.com/clubs/ironsdetail.aspx?id=8309 In either case the highest lofted wedge is the LW which is 58 degrees and trying to bend it 6 degrees would probably result in it breaking. If you want to get a 64 degree wedge you would be better served just buying one. Personally the highest lofted wedge I use is a 60 and when it gets replaced later this year I will be switching to a 58 degree. Have you tried just opening the face on the lob wedge?

Great looking putters. I wish I had read this before my wife dropped 400 dollars on the Scotty.