Established Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

38 Moving Up the Leaderboard

About Spitfisher

  • Rank
    Dedicated Member

Your Golf Game

  • Handicap Index
  1. I've spoke to a couple of pros today that I know. One older pro said his "business and success is based on relationships with his members and potential members. Integrity plays are large role in that relationship. Outside of a charity event thats focus is to make money for the charity I will only play in Pro-Ams or PGA sanctioned events" My other pro, after I explained what actually had occurred and some of the rumblings that I heard from some players at the event. he explained Pros can play in events like that, there are no rules pertaining to it. There is also no rule about taking candy from a baby, But I think you'll find your better golf course professionals don't bother to". To much exposure, damned if you do and damned if you don't. He continued that a "traditional scoring tournament maybe more acceptable I'f there was a mixture of both pros, ex pros and scratch golfers, low handicap etc. But it sounds as though if was a large private group of Saturday morning players of mixed handicappers in a huge skins game. There was a goal of skins & CTP and not so much the final score or net" "have them limit the entry next time"
  2. Ok, so it's clear, unless otherwise indicated pros can play. Now, Does your club pro or director of golf play in this type of an event???? Yes or no?
  3. When I said yes I meant people from out of town or who ordinarily do not play in the event Apparently after speaking with some event usually is a sell-out meaning that there's people waiting to get in. There was only one pro that played in the tournament this seemed to be a concern after the tournament that this guy played in it my guess is next year there will be an understanding that Pros will not be allowed to play in it this is what prompted this thread was not about the amateurs playing in it but the pro playing in it whether it's a rule or it's just kind of a mutual understanding
  4. Although I can appreciate the advice concerning amateur status, I can assure you it won't be an issue me or with this group that attended. Mostly weekend player types with families and careers. lets go back to the original question, not from a rules Perse but from an ethic, reputation and general well being. BKuehen you see nothing wrong at all. If I am understanding correctly My assumption is wrong, but for this late season skins and pins by local members and out of town guests playing in it. I think they see this as ethically wrong. I.e. No other pros from 7-8 clubs in the area played in it. This pro is scratch plus golfer.
  5. we forfited our amatuer status- had we won and had we accepted the money, is what you mean(?)
  6. While Visiting a friend down in Fort worth area over the weekend. We played in a skins and pins event. It was organized by some local guys, It cost a 100 bucks a man. There was a full field, quite abit money. There was some food and keg beer included. Surprisingly there was 4 pins and only one skin. Turns out the head pro (PGA Professional) from a neighboring golf course won the one skin and 2 of the pins. Close to $8000 I don't have sour grapes but I thought as a pro you couldn't play in money tournaments that were like this? am I wrong? I thought that pros could play in tourneys against their peers or in pro events. Is it a rule or just an unwritten rule and understanding?
  7. Keep in mind those of you thinking that Phil had a point with Spin, this was 2004 the proV1, Nike TA , Calloway ball (rule 35??) were all remarkably simular. There was no Prov1 X, there was no ultra thin covers like there is today....they were remarkably simular except in the patent office. Todays golf ball differences can be found in 130 yards on into the green. .....and then to spend 4 or 5 hours. I happy to hear PHil realized his fault and not only did he appologise, but he personalaized by calling directly, then made it known public. I hope the lesson learned his technical babble gets him no where in the public eye except those who succumb to believing in it.
  8. I think DJ hands down, overall he had a great year, not just a strong finish like Rory
  9. 7 Ps Proper planning prevents piss poor perfromance probability
  10. Now that right there would "proper planning" by Phil. Besides how many balls do you have to hit to make a determination of Tigers ball over your own??? The 5 Ps- something I have subscribed to..... Proper planning prevents piss poor perfromance
  11. Phil had diarhia of the mouth yesterday, giving a reason for the poor play of he and tiger in 2004 RC as not being prepared to play and test Tigers golf ball that is "higher spin" versus his low spin ball. Plausible only with Phil. 4-5 hours??? Puh-lease. I have been involved in 3rd party testing of golf balls and i can actually say that Phil is full of Sh*t here. The overall difference in spin from tour caliber golf balls, rememebr we are going back to to 2004, the diference is insignificant off the driver, from eight iron on down to wedges the spin characteriscs averge out from one one spinny tour ball to and the next low spin tour ball is less than 5%. in other words a 5000 RPM wedge shot with the higher spin ball would be 4750 RPM at the worst case scenario. Remember these are 20o3-04 golf balls, the TA and PV1 are just a couple of years old at this point. Phil likes to talk, I get that, I like the guy, but please just shut up about ball spin and admit you ( and tiger) played badly, too much limelight for both is much more plausible. Two thumbs up for Hal Suttons response too. In alternate shot, you play with one ball, and that was the issue, Mickelson said. "[Woods] found out the year before when we played at the Presidents Cup in 2003 that the golf ball I was playing was not going to work for him," Mickelson said. "He plays a very high-spin ball and I play a very low-spin ball, and we had to come up in two days with a solution. "So I grabbed a couple dozen of his balls, I went off to the side, and tried to learn his golf ball in a four- or five-hour session on kind of an isolated -- one of the other holes out there trying to find out how far the ball goes. And it forced me to stop my preparation for the tournament, to stop chipping and stop putting and stop sharpening my game and stop learning the golf course, in an effort to crash-course and learn a whole different golf ball that we were going to be playing. "In the history of my career, I have never ball-tested two days prior to a major. I've never done it. It doesn't allow me to play my best. What allows me to play my best is to learn the course, sharpen my touch on the greens, sharpen my chipping out of the rough and ball striking and so forth. "Instead, I'm taking four or five hours and I'm out trying to learn another ball to allow us to play our best. Had we known a month in advance, we might have been able to make it work. I think we probably would have made it work. But we didn't know until two days prior."
  12. Recently we saw tour groups of 3, ovbviously walking, and at times waiting for greens to clear, plumbobbing putts,, checking yardage and wind, you know the usual stuff, they played thier round at the DBC in 3 hours and 30 minutes which I thought was fine. I immediatly passed it along to my tortise golfers, explaining that they take 15 less swings but walk a 7400 yard course ( as oppossed to 6400), wjy does it take them 4:45-5:30?
  13. Mayb Spieth should spend more time over his ball, talked to his caddy more, slow things down a bit........... (god help us no!)
  14. I am well aware of history of his play, but be that as it may. he's the definitive "has been" assuming he is playing at some top secret driving range and teaching facility out in the desert somewhere. Returning to the PGA especially in the black, after so many years, that 613,000 is nothing to laugh at or even considered do-able. I also believe but I maybe mistaken that there is a time limit of when this has to occur and it may have expired. Afterall its been several years. Kim has remained somewhat of a recluse over the years, with the insurance policy, nike contract and popularity Im sure he could have be bettered himself by choosing a different path, but to each his own.
  15. Im sure Adidas would have prefered to keep Day, make no mistake with that. Adidas according to my sources offered a 5 year-5 mil per year deal. Nike offered 10 million per year. Its a common understanding that apparal has the highest margin (profit) both for adidas and UA for that matter. Im no rocket scientist but Nike golf presently, according to sales figures 700 million world wide , with clubs , balls and bags doing about $150 - <200 million of that. Im no rocket scientist but that leaves about 500 million for apparal and yet Nike is on the hook for yealy endorsement in the range of over 100 million. As i travel around at both private and public courses, Clearly young and old are wearing UA, Adidas, some oakley, Puma and even some Travis, Callaway, Png & FJ. There is a fair amount of nike shirts out there, not like before though. These other brands clearly own the lionshare of business and are also stepping it up in popularity with Kids- especially UA. Weekend Golfer " Bob " is not plunking down 80-90 for a Nike golf shirt and feeling good about it. UA, Travis, Footjoy and Adidas is a different story. " Nike golf " feels threatened with thier 500 mill trending south, so they have adopted their "nike" footwear strategy of buying athletes. Hence the Jason day signing, this is how they operate. The fresh bitter taste is still in the their mouth of losing Stephan Curry has cost them Millions in footwear. Not millions of dollars, millions of footwear SKUs. They blew it with their presentaation to him. So with Rory, Tiger, and #1 Day in their stable will this translate and resonate with the consumer into buying golf shoes and golf shirts? Golf is entirely different and now a much older and mature person. Personally I don't buy a golf shirt because some one is wearing it. Nor a club And as a fan of jason Day that still won't change.