Jump to content


Forum Leader
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Pretzel

  1. Titleist blades designed for Adam Scott, up to the 718MB line, actually had more offset than the Titleist CB irons. It was only with their newer 620MB that they finally made their blades into a "low offset" design.

    Blades do have offset, it's just generally designed to be less obvious and to be less than most GI/SGI irons. Clubs with truly zero offset will actually look quite strange to most people's eyes because they are so uncommon.


    With the slight bulge on the leading edge of most irons, since it's not a straight line, it makes a true zero offset iron look like it actually has onset in most cases. By comparison, below are some photos of some blades with traditional/standard designs below (620MB, P7TW, MP-20):


    • Informative 2
  2. I refill my water bottles, take a leak, and potentially grab a hot dog/burger/crackers that are ready to go at the turn to take with me.

    Waiting and allowing groups behind you to play through while you eat only slows down the course for everybody. You are leaving the tee box open, but the group behind you cannot actually use that until they get there. There is no gap between the group behind you and the group 2 spots behind you. If you try to fit in between those two groups, there is no gap for you to fit into and you will slow down the entire course.

    If you specifically have separate front and back nine tee times, with time allotted for a break between nines, then it is acceptable. Outside of that, food or other items at the turn are grab and go only.

    • Like 1
  3. I truly have no issues with the swing, and I don't think it's a bad option for golfers struggling with traditional swings or beginners who are looking for an "easier" start. It's essentially just the golf version of a baseball swing where you start with the club behind your head, then swing at the ball. It's definitely easier to grasp quickly than a normal swing, and for people with limited hip/shoulder mobility it would likely be more comfortable than a traditional swing as well.

    My issues are primarily just the outlandish and outright false claims. It's like the "vaccines cause autism" mentality, but applied to golf. 

    • Like 1
  4. 1 hour ago, onthehunt526 said:

    They aren’t an F1 car, no. But I think you’re underestimating NASCAR Cup Cars... if you took NASCAR’s regulations off of a car... 900 HP wouldn’t be out of the question... neither would 250 MPH....

    900 horsepower and 3,400 pounds still pales in comparison to 1,000+ horsepower and 1,600 pounds. Power to weight ratio is still more than 2x in the favor of the Formula 1 car, with an F1 car having much more flexible aero packages for reduced drag (on ovals) or increased downforce (on road courses). Even swiss-cheesing the NASCAR chassis to save 1,000 pounds doesn't put it in the same class as an F1 car, but that's perfectly okay. They're different cars for different purposes.

    • Like 1
  5. 42 minutes ago, ChetlovesMer said:

    Okay, we haven't done one of these in a while, so here goes:

    Would you rather #38

    Let's imagine your a tour pro who's just been offered a "whole bag sponsorship deal".

    Would you rather

    Play a whole bag where you are not incredibly fond of the Driver but LOVE the putter? 


    Play a whole bag where you are not incredibly fond of the putter but LOVE the driver? 

    #2 for me.

    Every brand has some sort of Anser/Newport/Newport2 style putter in their repertoire, but some brands have drivers that work much better/worse for me than others. I'd love to keep my current putter (or a Circle T version of it), but honestly I'd be just fine switching to another brand's near-identical model. The same can't be said for the big stick, just because there's more performance difference between brands and models there and different brands/models will fit different swings better or worse.

    I like my putter, but not that much. I've kept my putters for a long time over the years not because I disliked other putters, but because they're all so similar it's not like I would get any improvement by going to something else. I know that I properly aim a Newport/Newport 2 style putter and the amount of toe hang that comes from a plumber's neck fits my putting stroke nicely, so beyond that anything else is just for looks/feel with no actual measurable improvements.

  6. I'd also wager that an F1 car would quite thoroughly thrash a NASCAR Cup car on any track in the world.

    Without restrictor plates the NASCAR Cup cars are limited to 670 horsepower. F1 cars peak out at over 1,000 horsepower. The minimum weight for a NASCAR Cup car is 3,400 pounds, while F1 cars weigh only 1,631 pounds. That's nearly twice the power in half the weight, not even counting the grippier tires, additional downforce, and stronger brakes.

    • Like 1
  7. If you are still looking for playing partners, or if someone currently lined up isn't able to make it, I would love to have the chance to join you for your round! Feel free to shoot me a message if you want to get to know me a bit more, or if you have any questions/details that need to be reviewed.

  8. I am really enjoying that this season there is some legitimate competition to Mercedes. It's clear that both Verstappen is incredibly talented and the Red Bull is incredibly difficult to drive well, but at least this year there is somebody besides Hamilton/Bottas who is legitimately competing for wins each week and the overall title.

    I'll readily admit I'm not much of a Lewis Hamilton fan simply because it gets boring watching the same guy win for so long, but I'm really enjoying seeing him get the chance to properly display his talent again in a way that hasn't really happened since 2018. Wire-to-wire victories are impressive, of course, but admittedly not much fun to watch especially when nobody else even has a chance. Seeing him race on more equal footing is fantastic because it gives better perspective on just how good he really is as a driver.

    That said, I'm still strongly anticipating next season's regulation changes. I was so disappointed when they were postponed another year, but now that more teams have long-term certainty (McLaren, Aston Martin, Red Bull/Alpha Tauri, Williams, basically everybody other than Haas is in their best financial position ever compared to the last 3-5 years) it will be even better since hopefully we aren't at risk of seeing teams bail entirely if they don't have a good design philosophy from the get-go. If the increased ground effect helps cars follow and race one another, as predicted by simulations, it will be fantastic even if the pecking order largely remains the same (unlikely).

    • Like 1
  9. I know I definitely used to fall into this trap more than I do now, but even today I still can find myself sliding into the same habit.

    Show up early for your round, hit the range, and try to find which feel I need to use that day to hit the shots I want to hit. Most rounds used a different feeling than the one before it, and if that feeling stopped working I'd try to correct something mid-round based on how I had been hitting it up to then.

    Last fall and this year in particular I've tried to focus much more on long-term improvement and consistency. I have something I've chosen to work on, and until I really nail it down I continue working on that item even if there are other problems. Focusing much more on the swing than on the result, and trusting that the results will come with time and repetition. When I started playing seriously again last year I quickly hit the max-up limit for my handicap index with my old technique of bouncing around, occasionally scoring well but only once in a blue moon when I managed to guess all the right feelings correctly that day. After changing my process I've steadily, and legitimately, improved from the limited maximum by nearly 2 strokes and from my "real" handicap at the time by at least 3 strokes.

    I still have a lot of work to go, but it's been very satisfying because by focusing on the process rather than the results I've ended up being much more consistent in the long run with less variability between rounds. It's paid off both in terms of long-term results and winnings from the men's club along the way!

  10. 18 minutes ago, Nyrangers1022 said:

    Thanks for quick response.   I'll try to get a swing video.   I actually tried to do one yesterday with my phone in super slow motion,  but it only shoots like 5 seconds at a time, and it's not enough time for me to hit record,  run over to ball and hit lmao.   I'm sure there's a way to do it, sadly I'm 33 years old and not big into these smart phones. Maybe I'll get my wife, to her likely disappointment, show me or record me

    Depending on your phone, you may have the ability to also set a delay on the start of recording from when you hit the record button (like the timers on actual cameras, some phones have that built into their camera app as well). 

    Otherwise you would likely also be fine asking someone else on the range to help you take a quick video, so long as they're not actively working on something and aren't the earbuds-in super focused type. If they're just finishing up, just arriving, or taking a bit of a break I've had luck asking somebody nearby if they could help me take a quick video so I can better see what I'm doing (ymmv depending on area and who specifically is around).

    • Thanks 2
  11. The biggest improvement in my golf game happened when I played 18-54 holes every day (plus warm-up and practice) and took 2-3 lessons a month one summer in high school, thanks to free golf from working at a course. Dropped my handicap from right about a 5 to my all-time lowest of a +2.7.

    As far as specific improvements go, that summer I primarily improved my tee shots and ballstriking. My "big miss" with the irons/wedges went from something I chunked/bladed 20 yards short or long, to something I hit two grooves low on the face that carried a little shorter/longer and curved a little more with extra spin. Lowest Score Wins was first published that year and I really put into practice a lot of important items from that book, specifically with regards to putting practice and understanding my shot zones/shot cones off the tee. Instead of trying to tweak the shot I hit off the tee to perfectly match every hole, I started hitting the shot I was most consistent with every time I could even if it wasn't the perfect shape for the hole, because I hit that shot better and it gave me better end results more often than the "ideal shot".

    I actually have had times where I putted better, or had a sharper short game, than that summer. Heck, right now I'm putting better than I ever have previously (0.52 strokes gained per round compared to scratch from putting alone) and I'm sitting at a 2.2 handicap currently, whereas at my best I was regularly losing a few tenths while putting compared to a scratch baseline. The biggest differences in golf will come from your tee shots and your approaches, even if the faster improvement might be seen in putting and short game (because those two items are easier/quicker to improve than full-swing performance).

  12. 23 hours ago, onthehunt526 said:

    Driving: Jack (I think they were equal in distance relative to the equipment they were  playing, but Jack stayed out of the shit)

    I have to wonder if this is particularly true though, simply because when Tiger burst onto the scene the new trend in course design and renovation was to "Tiger-proof" your golf course by making it longer, but more importantly by making it very narrow and penal specifically in the areas where longer hitters put their tee shots. Bunkers were added, the rough was grown out, fairways were pinched down to a narrower waist ~300 yards out from the teebox. Was Tiger truly less accurate than Jack, or is it partially because the courses were modified specifically to make things more narrow and difficult for golfers who hit the ball as far as Tiger?

    I personally believe Jack was still a bit more consistent off the tee, with Tiger Woods off the tee being best compared to Arnold Palmer ("Hit it hard, go find it, and hit it hard again").  I think it's an interesting and important discussion though, because only one of these two golfers was so influential that virtually every important golf course around the world was modified specifically to be made harder for that one golfer. Nobody talked about "Jack-proofing" a golf course, he won but wasn't so much better than everyone else as to be specifically thought about when designing a new or revised golf course.

  13. I had the most bizarre day of golf last Thursday afternoon, not at my home course but noteworthy in a birdie thread nonetheless. I hit 13 greens in regulation that day, including one GUR where I reached a par 5 in two. On the front 9 I hit all 9 GIR, and only 4/9 on the back.

    My AVERAGE proximity to the hole that day, for GIR/GUR, was only 14.54 feet from the hole. I had 3 different birdie putts inside 10 feet.

    I missed all three of those birdie putts, along with another 8 birdie putts (the longest being from only 29 feet away). It was very strange because it was probably one of the best ballstriking days I've ever had, in that I had 12 different <20 foot birdie putts, and yet I made only 2 of them with none of the ones inside 10 feet being holed (including 2 different four footers).

    It would be interesting to go back through my scorecards/MyRoundPro records and see how many of my tracked home course birdies were lucky putts vs how many were from good approach shots. Off the top of my head I know hole 17 was a lucky 35 foot putt, but most of the others that I can specifically remember have just been a good approach shot (inside 15 feet) followed by a reasonable putt.

  14. I've been in a scenario similar before, except I was the player who went over the time and it was an assistant coach who found my first ball as I was addressing my provisional. 

    Yeah, it really sucks to find the first ball after it's already been declared lost. Knowing that you could have avoided the two strokes if you'd just looked "right over there" instead, but the ball was lost and now at least you aren't out the $4 of a nice ball (assuming you pay for balls, I know many high school/college golfers don't during school tournaments).

    There was no discussion or arguments on the course, I just told him to toss me the ball and continued to play my provisional, but after the round he pulled me aside to tell me I should have just played the original ball since it was found before I hit the provisional. In all honesty I probably would've scored worse from the position of the original ball (deep in a bush requiring a drop that still would leave me in a bad position), and the ball was already lost. A lost ball stays lost, and if you find it after it's no different than coming out of the woods with an extra couple balls left by earlier golfers.

    I've also had the coach/caddy of another player in summer tournaments try to twist the rules against me as some kind of "gotcha!" at the scoring tent (where he wasn't even supposed to be allowed) over an event that happened very early in the round. I had pointed out to his player that you can't play from inside of an ESA like you can with other lateral hazards, and apparently that upset him when the player agreed with me rather than him so he claimed I looked too long somewhere on the front 9 for my ball. I hadn't looked for that long, I found it before the other players even started playing their golf balls, but he got himself worked up enough that I just withdrew and left without signing my scorecard or dealing with any of that hassle. This was a guy who made a big deal on the first tee (and multiple other times throughout the round) about being a PGA Professional and that we should all listen to his advice (against the rules) because he was a pro.

    Those incidents, among others I've encountered along the way, have led me to believe that the people who want to bend the rules are most often the people not actually playing in the event itself, but those who are "indirectly participating" as a caddy/coach/etc. There are no consequences for them directly, if caught the blame lands on the player, but if their players do well they can take the credit. They also usually know enough about the rules to be dangerous, either from intentional or unintentional misinterpretation.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
    • Upvote 1
  15. On 5/8/2021 at 10:19 AM, saevel25 said:

    It's hard to do when you swing out of control with muscle back irons. Its also hard to do when your a 30 handicap golfer in general. I rather that golfer get some distance, and proper yardage gaps on their irons than add more struggle to their golf game by playing muscle back irons.

    This right here is the heart of the discussion, and I'm not sure that I agree with this statement that muscle back irons necessarily add struggle to a golfer's game (at least at a certain point).

    Game Improvement and Super Game Improvement irons certainly are more forgiving on most shots hit fat or in wet turf conditions simply because they don't dig into the ground the same way a thin muscle back does. Beyond that, however, the data and testing (in the original video and in others) seems to show that forgiveness in an iron is a very overrated concept for players who can get the ball off the ground with that iron in the first place.

    SGI irons do definitely help with launch angle, and for somebody who regularly misses fat or who plays with soft turf conditions regularly they can provide a benefit. For people whose miss is thin/who play on firm turf, or for those who are at least generally getting the ball in the air every time, the SGI/GI style irons aren't helping you with anything and in fact can even be hurting your dispersion. That may not be the general 30+ handicap golfer you were referring to, but it does encompass most of the golfers 20 handicap and below.

    I switched to playing MB-style irons 4 years ago after doing a lot of my own testing (100+ shots on simulators and 10+ rounds of golf using both my forgiving irons and 2 sets of blades side by side) and noticing that the horizontal and distance dispersions were tighter, even when you leave miss-hits in the dataset (and believe me, I can still miss-hit some irons surprisingly badly). I picked up those two sets of blades used for only around $200-300 apiece, and that was for 2 year old clubs in great condition (older models go for even cheaper). I think a lot of golfers would be surprised if they did a similar experiment with some used blades compared to their current clubs, especially if they have access to a launch monitor anywhere nearby to book an hour or two on several different occasions to get hard numerical data for their comparisons alongside their on-course data just hitting two balls for every iron shot.

  16. On 5/9/2021 at 6:08 PM, Billy Z said:

    How fast are those greens?

    Usually they keep them at a reasonable pace, somewhere around a 10-11 in pace depending on how recently it's been mowed or how dry/windy it is that day. That day they were slow, however, because they had aerated too early when the grass was still dormant and were trying to promote a faster recovery once it started growing again. They also had ruined their mower reels with oversanded greens because of that, along with 3/4 of the maintenance staff dying/retiring at the start of March, so now they're finally starting to get everything back going again maintenance-wise.

    They actually have members of the men's club out there on the mowers now, just to keep the course in good enough shape, with a new reel for the greens. They're not cutting them as short as before, at least until they have a dedicated super and crew, but they're back to rolling 8-9 or so. The new reel and the finally recovered greens does mean they're rolling very smooth at least, which is the most important part, and they're good and firm again like usual.

    Just yesterday, 5-12, I got another two new birdies! A long 32 footer dropped on 17, and I was only a few inches away from a hole in one to finish on 18. Played poorly overall that day (+4, 72), but finishing up with a pair of birdies back to back makes you forget about all the bad that happened earlier in the round!

  17. My short game is the biggest weakness in my golf game, but identifying the weakness doesn't mean it's a mental issue and neither does chipping well on a practice green but not on the course.

    The most likely problem is that when practicing chipping you're giving yourself ideal lies and easier shots to practice than you end up encountering out on the course. Every time I go to the golf course I see people around the chipping green who prop every ball up in the rough, roll it out of deep spots, and never put the ball right up against the collar. On the course your ball is more likely than not to settle into the little dips and depressions because those are the localized low points, and balls that roll and stop against the collar of the rough are far more common than the dozens of shots people practice with the ball propped up perfectly 3-6" into the rough. Everybody chips to the hole in the middle or far side of the green instead of the one short-sided to them. For bunker shots they always have the ball in a perfect lie on top of freshly raked sand, pitch shots are from the pristine areas of fairway instead of in a dry spot, previously existing pitch mark, or other challenging scenario.

    I don't know what exactly your short game practice routine looks like @RandyBobbitt, but if you really are that good in practice and that bad on the course it's more likely to be an issue of unrealistic practice than an issue with a mental block. An easy way to get more realistic scenarios when practicing is to bring at least 1 golf ball with you for every hole on the practice green. Throw them all out there into the same general area, and hit them from exactly where they end up. Don't adjust the lie, and hit one or more balls to each hole on the green from every spot you choose to practice from. Make sure you're actually practicing for realistic scenarios, instead of just the perfect ones with easy hole locations.

    • Thanks 1
  18. Last Saturday I got to add two new birdies to the list in the latest men's club tournament, which was a nice plus since they also both won me some skins! Holes 1 and 12 were the new ones, and hole 1 was the best start I've ever had to a tournament with my approach leaving just a 8 inch or so tap in!


    On Wednesday I had my best ever overall day off the tee with +5.35 strokes gained driving (compared to the MyRoundPro scratch golfer baseline), but unfortunately no new birdies. I've finally been able to nail down some improved consistency in my drives, which has made a huge difference recently and hopefully will help me finish off the last of the par 4's with number 17 soon. Beyond that I just have 3 of the par 3's remaining so far - #9, #14, and #18. 

    • Thanks 1
  19. 2 hours ago, boogielicious said:

    Maybe the PGA players don’t get a share of the TV revenue like other sports. Just guessing. 

    Oh and the US Men’s National Soccer team should be paying us to watch them. They are colossally inept. 

    This is almost definitely what this plan is - use some of the money the Tour earns from TV broadcasts or other media and distribute it based on which players are influencing the value of the Tour's brand the most. The PGA Tour doesn't have team owners getting a cut of the media money (based on both performance and popularity, in many cases) like most other sports, so this seems like a nice way of doing the same thing for golfers who play an individual sport and would otherwise miss out on that opportunity.

    PGA players already engage in a popularity contest, because the more popular you are the more you earn from sponsorships - regardless of on-course performance. Sponsorships are where many, if not most, players earn the bulk of their income. This popularity prize isn't going to change any of that, it just seems like a way for the Tour to recognize the effect a player's personal brand has on the value and income of the organization as a whole. Certainly a more data-driven and scientific way of rewarding people than the backroom deals distributing media money in other sports.

    I'm all in favor of this as long as it doesn't turn into American Idol-style voting on a weekly, monthly, or even yearly basis. That's just feels cheap/cheesy and not truly representative of the value any particular player is providing to the organization as a whole. That said, I would ideally like to see everybody on Tour being ranked and paid rather than just the top 10, even if it means a slightly smaller cut for the players at the very top. Could just treat it like a $40 million tournament purse for your payouts, big money for winning/top-3 and progressive prizes from there. Then even the mid-level and smaller name pros are recognized for their contributions instead of only the top 10, because they still provide value to the Tour.

    • Thanks 1
  20. 3 hours ago, ChetlovesMer said:

    Would you rather #38

    Lose all of the memories you have of playing golf


    Keep all the memories of golf you have right now, but never be able to create any new golf memories? 

    Keep all the memories without creating new ones for two reasons.

    The more serious reason is that my Grandpa got me into golf early, when I was 3, and I grew up playing the game with him. He doesn't golf anymore and I have a lot of good memories of us together, so I'd hate to lose it.

    The more important reason is that if I can't create any new golf memories I can guarantee I'll have forgotten about my bogies, doubles, and triples by the time I get to the next teebox. I might need those little prayer beads to keep count for scoring, or just use my shot tracking device for scoring, but just think of all the advantages! Being a stupid monkey is easier when you can't remember how much you sucked during the swing change process, you're never rattled by had holes, and you can honestly say you have no idea why this new set of clubs turned up on your doorstep!

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
    • Funny 1
  21. 1 hour ago, Vinsk said:

    Ok...but for how long? This could be a real mess. I think the rule is fine as it is.

    For how long? Until the ball is at rest, just like with 100% of other shots where you wait until the ball stops moving before hitting it again.

    If the ball is moving, not oscillating or wobbling as described in Rule 10.1d, and it's hanging over the edge of the hole it's going to go in the hole without much more than 10 seconds delay maximum in the first place. Si Woo Kim's ball is an excellent example of about the longest amount of time it would ever take for a ball that was constantly in motion to fall.

    24 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

    Can I wait until the next day?

    Don't be ridiculous, for this rule to even apply you have to have part of the ball overhanging the lip. The maximum distance for the ball to travel before falling into the hole from there is 0.84", half the diameter of the golf ball. A ball that is still moving will cover that distance without enough delay to hamper pace of play. Either the ball will reach the hole or friction will stop it before it can travel 0.84", neither of those takes much longer than 10 seconds to occur even in the most extreme cases like this one.

    There is no reason to arbitrarily cap how long a golf ball is allowed to roll. Like I said earlier, it's no different than telling a player they need to pick up their tee shot and drop it 30 yards back because the ball was in motion for "too long". It makes more sense to just wait until the ball stops moving, instead of putting a blind timer on it. The original purpose of the ten second wait is to prevent players from delaying their group waiting for wind or other natural causes to topple their ball into the hole per Rule 13.1d(2). Rather than arbitrarily say 10 seconds is the limit, it makes more sense to just say the ball stops where it stops and must ALWAYS be replaced when moved by natural forces instead of only replacing it if natural forces move the ball after it has been lifted and replaced.

    If your true objection to this rule is how long someone might wait and how that affects pace of play, then eliminating the wait altogether for balls that are not in motion makes sense. In the majority of cases players wait 10 seconds, then tap the ball in. Alternatively you could have players see if the ball is moving and tap in when they see it isn't, and only rarely wait for any amount of time at all if the ball is still in motion. Or you could implement my proposed change where you might wait 15-20 seconds once every 2-3 years instead of the 10 seconds that happens multiple times each day in a PGA tournament. Eliminating 13.3 entirely and modifying 13.1d(2) to always require the ball to be replaced after a natural force moves it on the putting green solves the problem entirely and has an effect on pace orders of magnitude larger than just waiting for a ball to stop rolling before hitting it again, because 10 second waits are common and a ball in motion for the entire 10 seconds is incredibly rare.

    At no point in time does it make sense to require players to hit a golf ball in motion in direct contradiction with multiple other rules (10.1d and 11.2). Pace of play or "but it might take too long" are both absurd arguments against a proposal to just wait for the ball to stop before hitting it again. We already allow people to wait a specified amount of time for some natural force to move their ball that has already come to rest, it's not too much to ask that you allow players to actually wait until their ball comes to rest in the first place.


    On 4/17/2021 at 6:15 PM, iacas said:

    If the ball does not fall into the hole in this waiting time:
        »    The ball is treated as being at rest.
        »    If the ball then falls into the hole before it is played, the player has holed out with the previous stroke, but gets one penalty stroke added to the score for the hole.

    This is exactly the problem though, it's absurd to claim that a moving ball is at rest just because you decided it's been moving too long. It's completely arbitrary and perfectly contrary to the truth of the situation. It's no different than telling a player they need to pick up their ball and walk back 30 yards to drop it after their tee shot, because it had been traveling for more than 10 seconds so it must be replaced to where it was determined to be "at rest" regardless of the ball's actual condition. Encouraging or even requiring people to take a stroke at a moving (not oscillating) ball also directly contradicts other rules that prevent intentionally hitting a moving ball, which is what leads to this level of confusion in the first place.

    Rules are fair when applied consistently, as they were here. This ruling was correct and fair, given the text of the current rules. The ball is treated as holed by the previous shot, and a one-stroke penalty is applied for that hole (same end result as if the player had simply tapped the ball in themselves instead of waiting).

    This does not mean that the rule itself is correct and should not be changed, if only for the sake of consistency. The rules changes from 2019 were a big step forwards for the game, but occasions like this show that there is still progress to be made. Players should not be waiting unnecessarily when a ball sits on the lip, which is the current intent of the rule. Players should also never be required to hit ball that they and their playing partners can clearly see is still moving, which is the current consequence of the rule and directly contradicts rule 10.1d.

    I believe that there is a very simple change that can be made here, which would prevent this contradiction and make the rules easier to follow and understand without defeating the original purpose of the rule.


    a. Waiting Time to See If Ball Overhanging Hole Will Fall into Hole

    If any part of a player’s ball overhangs the lip of the hole:

    • The player is allowed a reasonable time to reach the hole and ten more seconds to wait to see whether the ball will fall into the hole.

    • If the ball falls into the hole in this waiting time, the player has holed out with the previous stroke.

    • If the waiting time has passed and the ball then falls into the hole before it is played, the player has holed out with the previous stroke, but gets one penalty stroke added to the score for the hole.If the ball then falls into the hole before it is played, the player has holed out with the previous stroke, but gets one penalty stroke added to the score for the hole.

    Exception - Ball Has Not Come To Rest Before End Of The Waiting Time: If a ball in motion during the waiting time remains in motion and falls into the hole, even after the waiting time has passed, the player has holed out with the previous stroke and there is no penalty. A ball which remains in motion during and after the waiting time is covered by Rule 11, not by this Rule.

    For a player who makes a stroke at a ball in motion, even after the waiting time has expired, see Rule 10.1d

    You still get your ten seconds for a ball at rest, as per usual, but you are no longer allowed or required to hit a ball in motion. Likewise you are not penalized an additional stroke for factors outside your control, such as conditions that mean your ball continues to roll for more than 10 seconds before falling into the hole. It doesn't affect pace of play and it makes the rules much more consistent

  23. Playing on Saturday I picked up a birdie on hole #4, which is nice since that's definitely the hardest par 4 and I've got it finished for both the front and back 9 now. The other two birdies in my even par 34 were duplicates, but I only have holes 1 and 9 remaining for the front by now.

    The back nine was decidedly less nice, since I followed up my up and down front nine 34 with a horrifying 42 that contained a double, a triple, and three bogies with zero birdies to offset any of it. I was playing Wolf with those in my group and took a lot of risks off the tee on the back 9 because my partners were already in safe position, and precisely zero of those risks paid off. In the future I'll likely just use standard stroke play strategy around the course even if a higher-risk option could be better for a cash side game, because otherwise that little course will eat you alive off the tee if you play aggressively and miss. 

  24. 3 hours ago, billchao said:

    Yea but they’d be asking him to start the tournament, not finish it. He’d do fine 😜

    "Next up on the #1 tee, the best player for the start of the Masters to never win the tournament, Greg Norman!"

    If Augusta wasn't as strongly formal/traditional as it always has been that would be pretty funny, but it'll never happen for obvious reasons.

  • 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...