Jump to content


Established Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by imsys0042

  1. I personally don't believe that music listening should be in the rules because there are a number of things you could bring onto the course to calm you, or help you with rhythm depending on how you are wired. Music does not do it for me, although I like to listen to it. My club doesn't enforce the rule as many people listen to music, although the course is also non-rule compliant with hazards and drops anyway. Someone I played with told me that someone had a hole in one and there was some type of money on the line, so one of the other players was trying to have the round disqualified because he played music. Personally I wouldn't infringe on someone else playing music, unless excessively loud, so I wouldn't ask them. If it's a tournament I expect no music.
  2. This and the refuse to play with someone thread reminded me of a story from 10 years ago. I took a weekend trip to South Jersey and played somewhere down there. I was teamed up with a threesome. I should have just gone on my own. Mainly because one guy was doing business on his mobile phone and he was teeing off whilst doing it. So anyway the other two guys were ok, but this guy wasn't even walking away or talking quietly the whole time on his phone. If there was that much going on, don't show up. He didn't even stop while people where swinging, myself and his buddies. On 15 it just got to the point where it had been affecting me for several holes and my play was going downhill. It didn't bother me at much, at first, because if there was some emergency I can see that taking a little bit, but we were slow because of it, so we are almost 4 hours to the 15th hole with this being constant (he was doing multiple calls, not even the same call to the same person). So on the 15th green and I backed off a putt three times and then said "you know, this is not a freaking office". Obviously he didn't like that and justified that this was the only time he could get out and I should accommodate it. And I'll never forget this one, from one of the other guys "Let's look at you here. You are playing by yourself. You have no friends. What does that say about you?" ????!!!! So they told me to go ahead. I teamed up with, ironically for this thread, a single ahead of us and he couldn't believe it. He told me to go see the pro and he apologized and gave me a free round. Never got to use it because I lived 3 hours north, but nice of him to offer. Sometimes you should just walk away....
  3. I agree that in most places it's unlikely., My home course has people using this argument to justify not letting people though. Whether true or not, they claim to have let singles thru, but after a while they get tired of it and whoever is the next person behind them gets the shaft. My personal take is that the actual number they have let thru is 1, or even 0. There are a lot of people who refuse to team up at my club, so you can have several singles on the course in a short amount of time (hint: the club does not have the nicest membership). I have witnessed 3 in a row however a couple of times. The smart (and nice) thing to do would be to play the hole with the single and then let him putt out and he should be mostly gone by the time the foursome hits the next tee. If you do that 3-4 times, you met 3-4 people. But this is the place where people like to use "singles and twosomes have no priority" and saying things like "get some friends pal". If I am a single, I will let other singles play thru so I can take my time.
  4. I voted no, based on the description. I believe that in general if the course can accommodate without a delay that you should be able to refuse playing with someone. However a busy course is a busy course. You have to adapt. I will say that if you are paying $200 for a round somewhere and they look like real idiots then you should have some way to avoid the pairing, but in general no. I think I've refused to play with someone a couple of times only, in 30 years. Two guys with beers in their hands at 9am and sharing a bag? Yeah.... On the other hand I've had a number of people turn me away. Mostly because they think I'm going to be uptight or a really good player (I'm not uptight and consider myself a pretty OK one, not great). I don't have any hangups about the ability of the people I am playing with, but I've had a number of people see me head for the back tees and tell me to just go ahead without them. Interesting footnote though. When I joined my CC I was shoved around the tee sheet a bit. I didn't know anyone and was shy about booking a tee time with someone in case they didn't like it (I wasn't shy about joining up with people on the first tee or on the course though). The pro shop would pair me with someone else to get another tee time and unfortunately several times the people I was paired with joined up with other people on their own and I left without getting to play. Not a great situation.
  5. It depends on how fast/slow the individual players are. I once was in a group behind a single who was so deliberate he, by himself, was behind pace. And not a bad player either. On average five some will be slower. I caddied for foursomes as a kid who would do 18 holes in less than three hours. Add one to them and they are 3:15 at worst
  6. I would have to say the double bogey free round. Too many places on most courses where one wayward shot will ensure a double. I will say I have a lot of rounds where I am off but hitting straight and hence shoot low 80s with a lot of bogeys because it's a sloppy day. Those rounds can frequently not have a DB.
  7. I'd enjoy that. I'm good for fixing other ball marks and I rarely take a divot. 33 cents per shot would put me around $25 - $27 per round. That's cheap!
  8. The mentality on my current course is that people "pay a lot of money to not be bothered". Several people have apparently told the pro shop that when people have complained about being held up with room in front. The irony is that for the course we play is not overly expensive for as nice as it is.
  9. Stayed at a 7.6 because I had no postable scores in two weeks. Was supposed to play in the club championship and pulled a muscle in my back. I have a low score that will come up that might put me back in the low 8s.
  10. Ditto to @RH31's post. I have my own things to visualize but it's not a pro's swing. I do however try and emulate a good pre-shot routine and try to put the thought in that they do
  11. I've never had an issue playing multiple balls. I used to live in NJ and courses are always full so it's hard to play as a single on a lot of courses. In the rare times it would happen, no one had an issue with it. A golfer who fixes divots and ball marks will cause less harm than someone who doesn't and is only playing one ball. Here in Pittsburgh there are more opportunities and I've never had someone tell me not to do it. Couple of times I've also gotten the "hit a few extra and relax" from the starter.
  12. It actually hit me hard. I usually play by myself because of my schedule and to hear that kind of talk was interesting. These were some of the nicer people there. I don't think were trying to be mean, but it was really ignorant.
  13. I'm responding to the original post here. Yes, I've taken a lot of what is described and more. The club I play at is pretty unfriendly to singles IMO. I've played numerous times with a group in front of me that has room and they dont acknowledge I am therethere, let alone let me go thru. I've played with at least three groups that won't let singles or twosomes thru and said "singles and twosomes have no priority" or "golf is a game for 4. They shouldnt be out here like that". I'd say its mainly because people refuse to wait a couple of minutes. People are pretty arrogant and self entitled here. Two of the best stories are 1 - on a busy, slow day I wave a twosome to hit and I stand to the side. There are four groups on the hole. They hit, then proceed to drive past me, never even look at me and go to their balls and wait for 5 minutes. They just hit and ignored me. There was no point in waving them thru except to play along and they just stood there with their backs to me 2 - this happened a couple of weeks ago. There is a saturday group where I play. I was in a foursome, but there were 2 threesomes in front of us. A single comes up behind and these guys treattreat it like an inconvenience. I thought he could play thru us and join one of the threesomes. One of the other guys goes "hey buddy,get some friends." about the situation. I was kind of disgusted about it. Why make friends with people like that? They never let him thru
  14. That's a good point. I would prefer that as well, but that's because my feeling is that an infraction that slight is not penalty worthy because it doesn't affect the shot. That's how I read 18/4, and is prefer that hey expand that to other cases. Unless they want to go another route. I don't want golf to become people huddled in a room pouring over replays to assess penalties. There are cheaters but most are honest. Naked eye within a stipulated reason seems to make sense to me problem is that what is the naked eye looking at? A TV replay shot in some resolution. No reason we cannot try to determine a threshold where it's reasonable to stop squinting at the screen
  15. That's it! I played there when I learned and throughout high school until I moved over to Trenton State. Lot of good memories there! i remember the people that owned it and worked there. Tried to do the best they could with the budget they had. Super nice.
  16. I would have quoted but I don't think I know enough about camera and video to answer intelligently the technical questions . However I don't think we want to prohibit certain technologies. Instead if it's possible I'd prefer if they can compare against high def vs regular then that meets he same standard as 18/4 where if you cannot see unless it's high-def then its insignificant enough. If that is not possible then I think you have to determine how slight the infraction is in HD since a lot is shot that way now. That becomes more of a judgment call. 18/4 seems to imply there is some way to determine in HD only and I prefer that standard. It's not perfect but I think it's the best option.
  17. Wow. I can see where this is useful if someone meets the legal definition of harassment or is threatening someone. However all information on the internet is subject to some type of independent verification unless it's a known trusted source, like a professional medical organization, CDC, or a definitive resource that is trusted outside of the internet. Or anything I say.
  18. I voted to apply the 18/4 decision to other areas. I base it on that if 18/4 allows for such small movement and it does not incur a penalty, then I cannot think of something where something so slight as not to be noticed except by zooming in that it affects the shot. I would say that any sand brushed to affect play would also be clearly visible. Same for touching the ground in a hazard, etc. I would hope that players, if they notice, would call something on themselves if they notice but it's very slight. But the case where a player does not notice and you have to show HD video multiple times and zoom in is, in my opinion, becoming a witch hunt. We put limits on many things in the game of golf. A bad shot could result in a lost ball or a OB penalty, effectively stroke and distance. Yet the same bad shot could be a one shot penalty going into a hazard. Similarly, different penalties are applied based on the severity of the rule breach. I think this is an extension of that by saying "It was so minor that we are not going to say it was material enough to cause a penalty", much like a judge dismissing your ticket because you were within the margin of error on a speed gun.
  19. Someone can correct me, but I believe the point of this thread is whether or not zooming in on HD video is really something that ruling bodies and tournament committees want to do. If it is that minute, then under 18/4 deems the ball to not be moved, if it moved during play. This thread is about whether or not other infractions are so tiny that they can also be deemed to not cause a penalty. The fact that the player did not see it is immaterial. In the Women's Open case the player did not see it, but someone else did and reported it. Obviously there are instances where a player might not notice but someone else does. The question however is "if you have to zoom a HD shot, should it incur a penalty?" or maybe more appropriately "should we be zooming in the first place?" 18/4 tells us that if it's only visible on such HD optics, then the former question's answer is "no".
  20. Or conversely they adopt a similar decision like 18/4. I know they were trying to do the right thing but pouring over a video and blowing up the picture reminds me of a witch hunt. I read 18/4 as "if you need HD optics to see something, it's not significant enough". Do we really want someone pouring over replays like crazy looking to trap people? I feel like that is where it could go. also the USGA is about as non-profit as I am. So instead of modifying a rule or decision I would say that they get extra people watching anyone within the lead closely then. They can afford it. Even without my $25 since they baked Shinnicock so bad they had to water the greens during the round (aka they just want a bitch of a course). But that's OT.
  21. One of the things that strikes me about whether things are fair or not, is that people who say "life isn't fair" or "rules aren't fair" or some distillation of that, don't consider that if there is something that can be done to reasonably make something more fair without violating the principals, then why not consider it? golf is full of unfair things that can happen. Many of the proposed changes violate the principals. But not considering something because other things are unfair is not being open enough IMO
  22. Certainly not. But if they on their own don't show anything and have to be zoomed in on to show something I'm not sure i like that. To me it's a lot like Tiger's oscillating ball which I think was the basis for 18/4. Yes it moved. No, it didn't move enough for a penalty is how I read the decision. My understanding of how they found this was that they had to enhance the existing video (zoom). I'd have no issue with the naked eye rule as discussed elsewhere, where a simple reply even if you have to squint a bit, shows a rule breach.
  23. I guess more to the point, would omitting the zoomed in optics matter to you? The thought process being that something that can't be seen to the naked eye wouldn't be significant, hence the USGA deems it as not happening (or in 18/4, the ball is not counted as moving). You're correct that the magnitude upon seeing it is un-important, although would you feel that way if there was a decision like 18/4 applied to the sand rule?
  24. This is something that I struggle with, and I completely agree with you. Part of golf (and life) is putting up with things that bother you and whether someone is trying gamesmanship on you, or just a twonk, you have to not let it bother you.
  • 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...