zeg

Count me as another who doesn't take range balls. However, I'm sympathetic to those who do, at least in cases where it's clear that found balls got mixed in with purchased range balls. Given that abandoned balls on the course are generally not considered to be course property, I don't think it's exactly theft to take one. It's in sort of a grey area. If you're finding one nice ball in every couple of buckets of yellow practice balls, that's one thing. The maintenance guys probably appreciate your getting that oddball out of their supply. If you're taking a dozen out of every bucket, that's something else, though. Legally? It's probably theft in all cases. The ball that came into the course's possession could be reasonably considered abandoned by its rightful owner, so it probably belongs to the course (or whoever picks it up). The same is not true of the ball in the bucket. You've clearly rented that ball with a promise to hit it and return it, so regardless of how you believe the course obtained it, you can't unilaterally decide it's yours. Morally, though, I think it's much more ambiguous. But I don't want filthy range balls.

I don't use a long putter, I don't have any friends who use a long putter, and I don't foresee either of these ever changing. I think this is a silly rule. Since they apparently thought it was a problem that needed fixing, I'd rather they had just banned the equipment instead. (I know there are problems with implementing that properly, but there are problems with doing it this way also.)

Even at the national level, it can be hard to find out what a candidate really believes / how he acts in office. There's so much posturing and outright lying that you can't just go read their statements and decide, "Hey, I'm opposed to killing puppies, this is my guy." It is much easier than for local elections, though. In California, they have a nice pamphlet that contains statements from every candidate who cares to submit one, so you can at least know SOMETHING about, say, the candidates for the county council. Here in Indiana, good luck. Elections are annoying, and I agree with the general idea that one should not vote simply because someone says to do so. If you don't have an opinion, it doesn't do any good to flip a coin. However, the system must permit EVERY citizen to choose his or her vote (or lack thereof) according to whatever method he or she likes, so if you want to do that, go for it.

I don't know if I'd hold football up as an example of how rules should be implemented. Breaking the rules as much as possible without being called for a penalty is now an integral part of the game, and that is what is meant in the quote above about the game becoming a "travesty." It seems to me that the key problem you have with this is a philosophical one, and given that, I don't know that there is an explanation that will satisfy you. The basic idea, as expressed several times above, is that you are expected to comply with every rule every time you play. In match play, if you don't follow the rules on a hole, then you lose the hole. It's that simple. (Well, almost that simple---there are the various 1-stroke penalties, but these tend not to be penalties for breaching the rules so much as for "buying" relief from a water hazard or unplayable lie.) I really don't see the argument that this is unfair. In stroke play, there simply isn't a perfectly analogous penalty since you have to write down a total score at the end of the round. The powers that be have determined that 2 strokes is the best simulation of this. In the majority of cases (for reasonably skilled golfers), a 2 stroke penalty does mean loss of the hole, so it's similar in that sense. It's not so severe that it destroys your entire stroke play round, which would be too harsh. If pushed, I think it'd be easier to make the case for increasing the penalties in stroke play than for reducing it for match play, though.

I voted yesterday (but answered this poll on Wednesday...). I'm in a state where the presidential election was all but guaranteed to go opposite to my wishes (FiveThirtyEightblog put it at 100%), but you still have to do what you can...

It's not a question of whose opinion is valid, it's a question of what reflects a realistic, reasonable pace for a given course. Based on my experience, a foursome of fairly skilled novice golfers would have trouble regularly achieving a 3.5 hour loop on most courses, assuming they're playing efficiently but not cutting corners. Some may be able to do it sometimes, but they're not going to regularly average that. If you make the acceptable tempo too fast, it doesn't really help. You'll drive away golfers who would make a genuine effort to play a good pace, but simply don't yet have the skills to do so consistently. It has to be something that's achievable on average. If you set it based on an above average player's faster rounds, then it's going to be impossible to enforce without annoying people who aren't doing anything more offensive than having a rough round. The difference between 3.5 and 4.5 hours is about 3 minutes per hole, or a little less than a minute per stroke. That's not an outrageous burden, and if you are playing to be sure you beat the 4.5 hour pace, you have to play to a faster pace most of the time. This way, you can deal with unexpected but legitimate delays from lost balls, e.g. So dont take it personally.

I assume you meant "not quite as bad," but I don't think you can really take an argument like mine much farther than I did. The other factors get to be important pretty quickly, and not all of them are in any particular person's favor (e.g., not many people put in the time, but there's a huge self-selection effect there). But, yeah, the point is that it's simply not a good bet. Still, don't get me wrong, if you have the means *and* you'll enjoy the ride, why not go for it? I certainly would. Nosevi, your statements about Q-school are at odds with pretty much everything I've ever read about it. Yes, the scores aren't always 6 under, but like you said, when it's not there's probably another factor in play. Plus, you have to get through *all* the rounds to make it. If you're not regularly blitzing courses, it's pretty unlikely that you're going to string together a bunch of miracle rounds just in time for Q-school, under the pressure, and if you're lucky, on harder than average setups so that the scores don't get absurdly low for everyone.

39: not too old to start playing golf. 39: too old to have a realistic shot at the pros. In the following, I'm not being US-centric, I'm simply using the numbers for the US because (compared to the world as a whole) most Americans have or could have access to golf. There's no reason to think Americans are better or worse than typical, so the numbers should be fair. There are roughly 300 million Americans, and roughly 100 PGA Tour level American golfers (these are good to within factors of about 2). With no other information at all, you'd conclude that there's about a 3 in 10,000,000 (3 x 10^-7) chance of making it. Even if you're off by a factor of a thousand in your estimate in the "right" direction, you're still talking about a 0.0003 chance---0.03%---which is something most of us would safely consider zero. And, in fact, the odds are probably worse, not better, than the naive estimate. Most of the factors that would increase the odds are things like having started playing with good coaching during one's early years, when new skills are easier to develop. Really, your only chance would be if you happened to be the 1 in 10 million who has such a natural knack for the game that you're playing scratch almost immediately. If you find that you're going to have to grind to get down to single digits, there's just not likely to be enough time left to improve the hard way. So, basically, it's fine to dream about going pro, but at your (or my) age, you should be playing for enjoyment of the game and the process of learning it. The odds aren't zero, but they're so close that it's irrational to pretend that they're anything else.

For some things, the definitions don't actually require markings (e.g., water hazards), so in that case, if the marking is improper or incomplete, you have to apply the definition yourself. This comes up a lot with drainage ditches down the center of fairways, at least at a few courses I've played. They don't always bother marking them, though they ought to. For OB, it's a bit harder because it's not always obvious. I think in that case, it would be whatever is on the official map (if there is one), or what the intent was. E.g., if there's a region that's behind a curb and it has one white stake, it might be fair to conclude that the whole separated region is OB. (Obviously, it depends on the exact situation.) If you're playing something serious, then use the rule for playing a second ball and get a ruling from the clubhouse when you're done. Me? I just use my best judgement. But the rules do give you a well-defined procedure for playing when something is unclear.

A couple of the holes at one of the courses near here has a few marked kind of like you describe. If it's really unclear, then I'd be inclined to give myself the benefit of the doubt. But be honest. If there's an obvious feature of the terrain that suggests the OB should continue and where that line is, then I'd think the committee had intended that OB line to continue. E.g., if there is no other reasonable place further off the fairway where OB should obviously start, then it probably is meant to continue. Or if there were heavy rough inside the stakes and wild-grown grass and brush behind it, I'd say the OB line was meant to follow that boundary. But otherwise, I'd treat the OB as starting perpendicularly to the last stake or whatever made sense given the situation.

While I'm inclined to agree, and I'd put a ball retriever in the same category as a pocket protector: yes, it's probably "dorky," but if you need it, you use it. Not everyone has the same attitude about self-deprecation, and some people don't find it amusing to think of themselves as "dorky." If you're trying to be funny in a friendly way, that's cool, but if the target doesn't take it well, don't put the fault on them. We're all friends here, right? I'll vouch for Fourputt having plenty of backbone.

Yay! It's turned into this thread again! If you take even half-way competent care of your cargo shorts, they'll stay in perfectly fine condition. They're not intrinsically any worse than non-cargo shorts. *Most* golf courses have no problem with them, in my experience. Some do, but not nearly most. Now can we have the collared shirt debate again?

Sure, it's up to the coach---which is why I said that you better be ready to give it all you've got if he calls on you. But you have to let him know what your level is. If there's a reason you're going to be at less than your best, he needs to know that so that he can make his decision. That's what Phil's statements mean to me. Throw in the apparent rule that the pairings were fixed, and Phil is just saying that he doesn't have it all available for the afternoon. I also think that the role of "intensity" in golf is radically different from other sports. In football, an amped up, intense linebacker is going to run over a less enthusiastic opponent. Golf is much less about overwhelming your opponent than about bringing your best. For some, intensity may do that. But many people play better when they're more relaxed.

Wow, I'm glad we've got yet another golfer here who's apparently more experienced than Phil Mickelson at winning golf tournaments. I find it particularly funny to hear the "100%" criticism mixed with the talk of the importance of being a team player. Playing 100% when you're on a team does not mean demanding to play 100% of the time. If you recognize that you're in a situation where a teammate is likely to outperform you, if you're a smart team player you tell your coach/manager. To do otherwise isn't playing 100%, it isn't playing on the team, it's being a selfish, macho idiot. Sure, if the coach disagrees, you go out and give it everything, but you're not doing anyone any favors by mindlessly demanding playing time. If he was speaking on behalf of Bradley about that, maybe that's a mistake, but it's hard to say. DLIII could certainly have disagreed with him, and Bradley should have spoken up if he disagreed. Maybe he did.

I'd have ruled you DQ for obnoxiously posting 20 pages of decisions in the middle of a thread.

One thing that you could consider in the case of replacing a lifted ball is that the grass on the green can sometimes shift after being replaced. I've had times on a slope (sometimes only a very small one) when it takes a few tries to get the ball to settle where it needs to be placed. In cases like that, I have seen the ball settle for a short time---long enough that it was at rest after being replaced---and then the grass gives a little and it rolls off. I wasn't there, so can't tell you whether this applies, but in cases like that---where I'd had trouble getting it to sit still---I would be very inclined to conclude that the ball had simply settled a bit further and essentially the grass giving way was the cause of the motion. Even if I had been setting up nearby, unless the motion occurred almost immediately after a stomp or after setting something on the green, I think it would be hard to think I'd really caused the motion. My experience has told me that it's common for balls to move apparently on their own in that situation. Of course, that depends on the situation. If the green were one of those "trampoline" ones I've sometimes encountered, where you can just feel the turf tugging as you walk around, that might affect things. In the end, I think you just have to be honest with yourself. Did you cause it? Are you (or would you be) comfortable telling a rules official, "No, I did not do anything that caused that ball to move," I think that's just got to be good enough. No sense getting hung up on it more than that. It's important to get right, but occasional errors are going to be made. Just do your best. I've not been personally involved, so this is based on the couple of times I've seen rules officials doing their thing on TV. It seems they ask the players / witnesses about what was seen, and then if it's clear cut would issue a ruling. If it's not clear cut, I've seen them basically tell the player what the conditions are, and basically tell them to decide. So it's not that different from the answers here as far as I can tell. If the player's decision was inconsistent with the other available evidence, they might overrule him, but if they've determined that there's no other way to determine it, then the player's (hopefully honest) assessment of the events would be all they've got.

Yeah, looks to me like the right call was made. Though I can understand wanting to get rid of a possible distraction if the rules allow it... but "mental interference" doesn't count.

It's actually only an extra 5 minutes in your scenario: the time for the second player to walk out and back. The 2 1/2 minutes it takes him to get to his ball after his shot would have been taken in any case. So it's not THAT bad if it's a hole where a lost ball is likely---just equivalent to the time you might spend searching.

I probably hit these shots about as often as anyone on here really needs to hit a 133 yard approach instead of a 136 yard approach. But, come on, this is exactly my point. These shots don't come up very often. The difference between a GPS and a laser is in the noise for almost everyone who doesn't already have a caddy with a precisely dimensioned yardage book. Each can do a few things that the other can't (or can't easily), but it's really, really rare that these things come up.

For the first part, I wouldn't consider walking down to the target and back to take measurements to be anywhere near reasonable. If you're talking about doing this to make up a yardage book, that's different, and not at all what I'm talking about here. For the second part, unless you know with high precision where the pin is in relation to your target, there's very little objective benefit to having +/- 1 foot versus +/- 10 foot errors on your measurement. I guess if your target is just "one club short of the flag," then that's fine, but that's really not a situation where you're benefitting from the exact yardage. Unless it just makes you feel better about it. There's a lot of value to that in this game!

Yeah, if you're doing that, then I'd say GPS and laser are equal. Unless you have a dimensioned map showing the pin location, you're guessing either way. I suspect for the vast majority of golfers, 3-4 yards will never be significant on any shot where you can't just pace it off. In that situation, it comes down to other factors. For me, the GPS form factor fits a lot better, plus I like to be able to use it to measure the occasional shot. I can imagine others preferring the process involved in aiming around with a laser, but it just doesn't appeal to me.

Well, the flip-side to this is that if you have a blind shot where you can't see the target you want the distance to, you're out of luck with the laser. A GPS can be useful for setting layups around doglegs or for shooting for a part of the green other than where the flag is. It's not always (or perhaps even usually) the best strategy to choose your club to match the distance to the pin. In that case it comes down to measuring to the pin and guessing at how that relates to the part of the green you want to land on, or trying to choose that point on the GPS map. With a quality GPS and decent reception conditions, the "inaccuracy" myth is indeed a fallacy. Sometimes the maps may be poor, that's true, but my experience suggests these are not nearly as common as the claims suggest. The laser is more accurate on paper, but whether that translates into a real benefit on the course is, to which this and other threads attest, a far more complicated question. Which is better, a laser or a GPS? It depends on what you're trying to do with it.

No, he's The British Champion Golfer.

Yeah, but that's no different from a football team that wins every game except the Superbowl. They still don't get the ring.

I've said this before, but I think the current format is fine. There are outcomes that are a little surprising, but as you've said, if you want a real playoff tournament, then you just have to go with a head to head bracket. That works for a lot of sports, but it's simply not viable for golf. Remember, the goal of the Cup isn't just to crown a winner, the goal is to engage the audience for a series of events at the end of the season (probably to sell advertising, but I'm not going THAT deep here). To do that, you need the big names to show up every week. You can't do a match play event just because the last rounds are awful as a telecast with 15 seconds of action every few minutes. If you want to fill the airtime, you'd have to have a bunch of non-winners playing matches that the audience simply doesn't care about. A winner-takes-all stroke play event, where you are required to qualify in a manner similar to the current system would be workable. I'm not sure it's an improvement, though. I think the idea of the FEC being about more than just winning a single event is a feature, not a bug. The complexity adds drama---it gives players who did poorly in the earlier events a big hurdle, setting up the come-from-behind kind of possibilities that exist in other sports to a much greater degree. The Snedeker "upset" of McIlroy (and others) is a lot more interesting than if they all qualified on equal footing, and then he happened to win the final round. So I'd say keep it as-is. [edit] Quote: I'll start with the assumption that the points leader before the re-set has to have an advantage. It would be patently unfair if Rory McIlroy, top-3 in the points going into the playoffs, and winner of 2 playoff events, didn't have an advantage in points going into the TC over Ryan Moore, who didn't win this year, and barely skated his way into the field with top-10s in the two playoff events that Rory won. I don't think this is an entirely justified assumption, but I do think it's a reasonable constraint to add. It is a choice of flavor and tone, and I think it makes the FEC "bigger," but the two teams in the Superbowl are on equal footing that day, whether they skated in with blowout victories or eked out wins from a wildcard through the playoffs.