Jump to content


Established Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

21 Excellent

About Meltdwhiskey

  • Rank

Personal Information

  • Your Location

Your Golf Game

  • Handicap Index
  • Handedness

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Please answer the question. Provide a definition for a divot hole that does is non-ambiguous. I promise I don't have the passion about this particular subject to continue this. It was just a thought I had that it seemed a bit unfortunate to hit into a divot. I might be able to spend some real time on it and come up with a bullet proof definition, but I am not. I will however start with one that might suffice for the situations I am thinking of. You get free relief if your ball is in the scar left on the ground that a golfer of knowledge and prudence would say was clearly the result of a divot and caused by a player and his club, and further, the scar must have not healed in any significant way - not even what the aforementioned golfer would consider 10% healed, but what he would consider a fresh, unhealed scar. For further clarification, please use the graphic: I see this on the golf course and I don't have any reservations about saying this golf ball is in a divot (or divot hole or divot scar or grassless spot created by a golfer swinging his club). A hole is a hole. When it's filled in, it's no longer a hole. The groundhog hole can carry similar ambiguity as this divot situation. When the hole is 6 inches deep, it is easier to see. But what about when it is 1 inch deep? 5/6 inch deep? 3/4 inch deep? 2/3 inch deep? 1/2 inch deep? 1mm deep??? The point is, a divot, as you have pointed out, will look different over time until it there is no remnant of it. The same is true of a groundhog hole that is abandoned. It gets shallower and shallower over time and is subject to the elements or grass growing over it, etc. And there is a point in time that the previous home of that groundhog will be ruled 'not a hole' anymore. The clarity with which you can determine groundhog holes, I feel I can do the same with a fresh divot.
  2. We left the principles "in the dust" because you're allowed to mark your ball on the green? Good grief...... We NEVER do it. It is adhered to 0% of the time. Bubba's situation wasn't subjective at all. The hole was determined to be that of a burrowing animal. That's all there was to it. Then mine isn't subjective either. My ball is determine to be in a divot - that is all there is to it. Those that want to change rules want to change them because they don't like the rule, and the consequences for the rule. Truth is, I don't have a huge dog in this hunt. I'm not petitioning to have any rules changed. But it is a philosophical thread and I thought of a couple that I think would be better done another way. OF COURSE people who want rules changed because they don't like it and because of the consequences. They change rules in all sports all the time trying to find ways to make the game better, more fair, more practical, etc. That's why I've mentioned these. no one ever said that golf was fair, just that each golfer be treated the same, under the same circumstances. It was you who wrote: Penalties should increase with the severity of the infraction. You brought up the fairness aspect. Until someone can define when a divot is no longer a divot, that just isn't possible. Once again - it is exactly as possible as determining when a burrowing animal hole is no longer one after the animal has moved on and wind, rain and grass have begun to reclaim it. I've seen arguments over casual water, too. It isn't like there is no wiggle room there either. The thread asks how I would change the rules. The answer is the two ways I've listed. It is like you are trying to tell me I'm wrong about my own thoughts. I believe I can apply the same penalties to Lost / OB as hazards. It doesn't even seem that hard to me. I also believe I can add divots to abnormal conditions and judge them like grounhog houses. Once again doesn't even seem hard to me.
  3. When does a divot hole cease to be a divot hole? At the same point in time a burrowing animal hole ceases to be a burrowing animal hole Also, divot holes exist in the rough, and the Rules don't define the fairway. I didn't know the fairway wasn't defined. I've often heard that "Winter Rules" apply only to the fairway. So someone is finding a way. But to make it easy, I'll say any divot anywhere. I think y'all are really trying to make something difficult out of something that isn't so complicated. Is your ball in a divot? Yes. Then you get a drop. In the VAST majority of instances, this is plain as day - like in the Miller / McCord scenario I outlined above. In all but a very few cases would this be in dispute. In such cases, a ruling can be made as to if it is still a divot or has become real ground again. Just like the groundhog. Playing out of the occasional (seriously, that almost never happens) divot hole is closer to adhering to the Principles than letting you drop. As previously stated, since we have already significantly deviated from the principles in order to make the game better, then I also am no longer trying to adhere as closely to them.
  4. I agree with you on what the point is. I just don't agree that we're doing it. When the principle is that you don't touch your ball, and then 100% of pro golfers touch their ball on 100% of the golf holes they play (except hole-outs I guess), I feel we've left them in the dust. This principle happens 0% of the time. If we were adhering to your standard above, I'd bet we'd see them adhere to it upwards of 1% of the time. I'm also not sure LC&P; because it rained yesterday is adhering to your standard. And I don't want to sound like I'm railing against these things. I think they were designed to make the game better. And while we're doing that - I think my 2 little ideas also make it better. Actually, the weekend warriors I see most of the time have already instituted them!
  5. With the guys I play with most often, two players will sometimes play at the same time. No reason not to if you are in the rough on opposite sides of the fairway and not disturbing each other. Order of play is irrelevant in stroke play, despite the wording of the rule. Whatup Fourputt? I had a feeling I'd hear from you on this - or anything else about the rules. I like the new avatar. Is that an impressionist? or is it just an effect in a photo? Anyway - I agree. If you are that far away from each other, fire away. Under what rule? Rule 25 is Abnormal ground. There is nothing abnormal about a divot hole (the divot is the piece of turf that was removed) on a golf course. Therefore there is no reason to give relief. Maybe I misunderstood. And I see now that this is a freshly bumped thread. I thought we were changing the rules - and it seems arbitrarily punitive to me to hit out of divots in the fairway. They asked what I'd like to change, that's what I'd like to change. And I would call a divot (or divot hole) abnormal. They make up a small percentage of the overall acreage of the fairway and hence would be possibly be defined as abnormal since "normal" would be non-divot area making up the vast percentage of the area. Also, someone recently took it from normal to divot when they smashed a piece of the turf out of the ground with a metal club. There are a lot of times that a ball is lost that there isn't a well defined place that it "crossed". It also means that a lost or OB ball would potentially receive less penalty than one that you find, is on the golf course but is in a poor or unplayable position. Penalties should increase with the severity of the infraction, not provide a cheap way out of a bad situation brought on by a poor shot. There are a lot of times a ball went into a hazard and it isn't a well defined place that it "crossed". Same parallel goes for a ball going into a hazard that could potentially receive less penalty than one you find. Not sure why lines marking OB would be treated differently than lines marking a hazard. Both are places you aren't supposed to hit. And if you get technical about it, one in the middle of a pond is also pretty lost. But for some reason, they drew lines around the pond that said - don't worry about going back to re-tee, just lay it here by the line with less penalty. As far as the severity of the infraction, maybe the rough is high and I lost my ball 8 inches off the fairway but my buddy went 30 yards offline and hit into the middle of the lake. I hit the better shot but am penalized more. And worse, I now have to slow down the game to go re-tee. And sometimes the OB is really close to the fairway. I've seen it where it runs the edge of the cart path. And yet a 6' ditch that is super easy to hit over gets the 1-stroke treatment. Penalties don't always increase with the severity of the infraction. A divot is subjective. The rules simply cannot allow for subjective interpretation in order to ensure equity, i.e. that like situations are treated alike for all players. Moreover, as @Fourputt explains, a divot is a natural part of the golf course itself. To be sure, it's a part that we don't like, but it's as much a part of the game as any other piece of luck, good or bad, that comes our way. The rules can allow for subjective interpretation - and I think they do. If memory serves, a couple weeks ago Bubba was able to take free relief because his ball was beside hole made by a burrowing animal. So I guess there was an official who had to determine if indeed there was was a hole made by a burrowing animal. Further, I guess at some point, said hole becomes a former home of a burrowing animal and wind and rain will at some point turn it back into normal ground. AND - the ball wasn't IN the hole. It was near it. The club hitting the hole was the issue. I imagine that meant he might hit the side of the hole or a mound formed by dirt that was formerly inside the hole. So - without advanced forestry or wildlife management training, an official is supposed to determine at what point this hole (or mound) is a hole and then at what exact point in time it becomes normal ground again. Just like he could with a divot. As far as a divot being a 'natural' part of the course - a guy before you scooping up the turf with a club is less natural than an animal who dug up some dirt. Also subjective are things like if you took a proper drop. Look at what happened to Tiger at the Masters. Over and over with the video and if it was close enough to the original divot. Some officials thought yes, like the ones on site who didn't penalize him. And some thought no, like the one who called it in after watching it on TV. And there are probably more subjective calls that I don't know about. I highly recommend Richard Tufts's book, The Principles Behind The Rules of Golf to the OP, any serious golfer, and to anyone with even a passing interest in the Rules and how they relate to the core principles behind the game itself. Interestingly, in Appendix II, Mr Tufts discusses the concept of changing the penalty for OB or lost balls and, given the interest in many recreational golfers to do so, that there was actually a study and brief experiment to determine if it would be feasible while still maintaining the integrity of the principles of the game. The short version......absolutely not. The reasons I mentioned being just a small part of the explanation. The entire book is short and well worth the read. You can find it for something like $3 on the USGA website. I have this book. And if I believed that we played golf under this, I'd be more on your side. A real purist way to look at it. But the book lays out 2 chief principles as the defining way we should play golf. I actually took a picture of the sentences in a magazine once before I had the book so I could carry it around with me. They are: 1) That you play your ball from the tee and never touch it until you remove it from the hole 2) That you play the course as you find it These are awesome. But we don't do either. Chiefly, we don't do #1. Every golfer I see - at the course and on TV - touches the ball on every single hole they play. And even if they didn't - the way I understand the unplayable rule, you could technically pick the ball up after any shot and replay it any time you wanted with an S&D; penalty. "Unplayable" is at the sole discretion of the golfer, right? We also have provisions for not doing the second: casual water, ground under repair, burrowing animals, etc. And don't get me started on Winter Rules or Lift, Clean and Place! And I can already hear the reasons that these things are OK despite flying in the face of the 2 principles. I've even argued some of them with Fourputt in the thread in the rules section about the Tufts book. So I don't want to do that again. I love the 2 principles, but I believe we left them in the dust long ago. And since we have deviated from that purist vision in favor of practicality and fairness - then I'd like to do the same with these 2 rules and for the same practicality and fairness.
  6. I second this. I first heard of this as a report on TV. The way I understood it at the time was that it helped prove that talent was over-rated and that the goal was some level of professional golf - not sure exactly what lever, but I assumed a playing pro, but not the PGA tour. It does sound like they are backing off of the goal.
  7. How do you know where to drop if your ball is lost? Maybe every hole has a drop area? Or the last place it crossed over from fairway into rough / woods / whatever? How do you define a "divot", and at what exact point does a divot no longer become a divot? I guess a divot is a spot where a chunk of grass has been taken out of the fairway by a previous player hitting the ball. I'd also probably include include when a ball sets down in a ball mark of a previous player - although I've never seen or heard of that happening. I see your point with wanting a line of demarcation. In my own experience and in watching TV, I don't remember having a lot of trouble determining when a ball landed in a divot. You see a ball sitting in a spot that was previously fairway, but is now a hole in the fairway filled with sand (or worse - no sand!). We could at least start with what is clearly a divot. You see it on TV all the time and hear Miller and McCord say, "don't roll in the divot! - oh, bad break, it rolled in the divot." Then when the player lines up to hit, Miller tells us how it is now going to make a really big divot because he's going to hit ball first then his divot will start at the spot where the existing divot ends. Then they do a slow-mo close up of the club striking the ball in the divot. They say divot 25+ times. I've always taken their word for it that it is a ball in a divot.
  8. I'd probably change S&D; for OOB / lost ball to something more like hitting into hazards. Mainly in an attempt to rule out any going back to re-tee. And I'd give a free drop out of divots.
  9. Gotta go with this one. In Georgia in the summer, it can become more of an exercise in sweat management than golf.
  10. I see what you're saying - she didn't pick Mary out of a crowd or anything. But right out of the gate she wasn't concerned with weather or not the girl would hit the circle. Instead of leaving it to chance or her intuition on that girl's accuracy, she chose to engineer a head-to-head shootout. And she knew who the opponent would be. I think this says she thought she had a better than 50% chance of beating her. And then she did.
  11. I noticed that as well. I'd think a 6 or 7 would get her there? Maybe creative editing. I didn't think the golf was as bad as some have stated. Seems like a decent amount of those shots were in the 5-8 ft range. That Mary is just kind of an ass, huh? And she really thinks highly of herself. So pissed that she got picked - as if it was the dumbest decision ever. I can tell you one dumber - Sadena. Based on what I've seen so far, she is much better than Mary. Just because you are big and a jerk does not make you the best golfer. And hadn't Tonya already decided that she would sit on the bench that ensured that she would go up against Mary because she felt she could out shoot her? And didn't it work? She really got called out twice during the show. She did well in the elimination, but I'd still say her bark is worse than her bite. And her craptastic attitude is kind of a distraction to the show. It's like she is talking all of those girls into thinking she is force with all her BS. Sadena is ice. Tonya seems good. I liked Lindsay's decision to pick Mary because the other girl was scared of her. It did not end up mattering because Mary was out before they got to a driver hole, but it was fairly clever all the same. Just because those two were tasked to pick someone to play against didn't mean they were on the same team. I'm still having trouble getting my mind around who they all are. I had to look up their names to write this.
  12. I agree with the "used' crowd. When I started a few years ago, I went in to the PGA to just get a beater set until I could decide what I wanted. Paid about 200 bones for a full used set of Ping G5's - 4-SW. Still have 'em. Love 'em. When I hit a bad shot, it isn't the G5's fault. I'm sure there are better clubs, but my misses are misses with any club. And my good shots make me feel like a pro. And the same goes for any beginner. Also, in retrospect I could have gotten an even cheaper set. The Pings were the ones I wanted, so I went ahead and sprung for them. I think the starter set you want is pretty attainable if you go this route. Some other gems I've found used that are in my bag now: $30 for a Ping hybrid $50 for a TM driver $20 Anser II putter $20 Ogio bag (actually new but I got it off Craig's) $80 for 1500 found golf balls
  13. What school is this out of curiosity? And how do you think a week long golf school adds to your abilities as compared to lessons more spread out over time? Do you not fear it is too much to take in? I feel it takes me months sometimes to get down a move they taught me in 30 minutes.
  14. 1 - 14 rounds / year 2 - 95 on the card / 110 in real life 3 - Age 40
  15. Watched the DVR last night. My thoughts: - Maybe a little more emphasis on golf and less on pretty girls this season. A few cute ones, but less than previous seasons. I thought they did pretty good on that 100yd shot to the circle as a group. A lot of those shots were pretty close. - I didn't mind the 'elimination' challenge. It has got to suck to get eliminated on the first show. It always seems to quick. This would be the second season in a row where no one leaves after only one show. Seems by design. - Probably the best co-host since I started watching. Wasn't a huge fan of Sparks, but she was OK I guess. Tafoya was terrible. This one is certainly nice looking and seemed like she had decent commentary. - Am I the only one that thinks Tom Abbot is actually Bill Hader doing an accent? - Seems like it will be a pretty good season
  • 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...