zeg

This is the truth. There's no 'fair' or 'unfair' about it. The $10M is a giant carrot to keep the big guys interested in playing out the last few tournaments of the year, nothing more. If it went to PotY, then maybe the handful of guys who are in contention show up. But even that isn't likely---the whole reason that the PotY is (arguably) still up in the air at all is because this tournament and the FedEx cup are "important." If it were just the last tournament of the year, with a weak field because most of the big guys are on vacation, then even a win probably wouldn't affect the PotY counts very much.

I think this is correct. I almost posted the above-cited decision as evidence that the incorrect marking took precedence, but I believe that is an incorrect reading of that decision. As someone interpreted above, that ruling says that you don't get to "take advantage" of the error by using the casual water rule for a hazard. A water hazard has a definition that can't be modified by local rule. In a case where there was a reasonable interpretation under which the stakes were correctly marking the boundary, then I think the stakes would be the deciding factor. If they're plainly wrong under the immutable definition of a water hazard, then I think the definition itself needs to be correctly interpreted and the stakes ignored (except perhaps in deciding whether it was the Committee's intent to mark it as a lateral hazard or not, based on the color of the stake). Informally, I wonder if it'd be fair to say that a stake can mark a hazard, but it can't "unmark" a hazard. That is, a stake can extend the margin of a hazard to be reasonably larger than the most conservative reasonable interpretation, but it can't reduce the margin to smaller than that. The area outside the stakes would, by definition, have to be included, regardless of the stake. I think this is a natural interpretation---and is the flipside of the concept that a Committee cannot "declare" a water hazard where there is no water.

I'm not going to describe my technique, because it's not good enough to be of use, but I am trying to stop worrying about being 25 feet past the pin on difficult shots like this one. Sure, I try my best to gauge it, but I don't dare come up way short---better a 25-foot putt (or, if you really blow it, another chip that's not short-sided) than a second try at this shot. The truth is that I rarely overshoot as much as I think I will.

The low point is behind where it should be, where it shouldn't be.

No problem at all. The FedEx Cup is, by its very careful design, not the Player of the Year award. You never complain about someone else getting "their" Superbowl rings if a team has the best regular season record and loses in the playoffs. It's a separate competition, and the whole point is that it's not a foregone conclusion before the last event is even teed up.

Yeah, this bothers me, too. I've seen a few courses who charge less for a shared cart, and this makes sense. I'd be happiest if they just charged a fee to rent a cart, so it'd cost half as much if you shared it. Though I can imagine that a cart drives a bit farther with two riders, so it's not ludicrous to pay a bit more for two than for one. My dad really flips out when a course insists on charging a full cart price and then requiring that riders share. In his case, it's because his usual partner is a doctor who gets paged out of the middle of a round fairly often. This creates a huge PITA if they're sharing a cart.

It has some benefits, but overall it'd be better if daytime hours coincided more closely with daylight. It's really hard to put the kids to sleep in the summer when sunset isn't until 9:30pm or later, or in the winter to wake up at 7am, two hours before sunrise.

Probably a couple months left. The daylight issue isn't bad since the morons who run this state decided to put it on Eastern time despite the entire state geographically belonging to the Central time zone. The only real issue is when it gets to be too cold and snowy, and that's something of a crap shoot. Last year, you probably could have gone out at least once every few weeks all winter long. (Sadly, that's all I've managed all summer.)

I find I perform about the same, but the rounds feel very different. There are both positive and negative effects when comparing walking and riding. As was covered above, walking can provide a better pace, or at least sense of pace. It also forces you to take some time to calm down after a bad shot---it's hard to stew while you're walking down the fairway. You get a long look at your upcoming shot, and have time to mull over your club choice before you get to the ball. You'll probably wait less, or at least no more, for each stroke than when riding, and that can often help one's game. You are also going to have all your clubs with you on every stroke, whereas an efficient rider will sometimes grab a couple guesses at the next club and then walk to their ball---sometimes this can push you to play with an incorrect or suboptimal club choice (obviously this can be managed, but many people don't.) The big, obvious benefit of riding is less fatigue. Especially on a hilly course, hiking 4-5 miles or more will wear you down by the end. For the more social golfers, sharing a cart and having time for conversations may help relax them. Since you're moving faster down the fairway, you may be more effective at finding lost balls, although this depends a lot on the situation and sometimes walking is better. You can also carry more equipment, drinks, etc, which can help. Overall, I don't find it to be a huge effect, and I don't think one is "better" for everyone. Whatever you practice most is likely to help you score better.

I'm going to agree with the OP's codger. It doesn't mean that all money spent on putters is dumb...

Well, I've gone to both, can I just spout my opinion, or do I have to actually do the research? Different balls certainly *feel* different off the putter, but I completely agree with your skepticism. My suspicion is that there may be a real effect, but it's probably because after a few putts, you anticipate the feel and hit the ball harder or softer. You're not going to compress a golf ball any appreciable amount with your putter, so it shouldn't matter much what it's made of. Though, just thinking to myself, if it feels different, then something is happening to affect that. Maybe some objective testing is in order.

It'd only be his 3rd stroke on his scorecard, but it'd be the 4th time he physically teed off on the hole. At some point it gets demoralizing to be treating a tee box like the driving range. :-)

Dude, go to the hardware store, buy $0.79 worth of magnets, and glue them to a $0.99 bracelet. I personally guarantee you'll sink 30% more putts and hit 15% more fairways while wearing this bracelet. Plus, you save $15 and don't support the snake oil scamsters.

After my soul searching performance a couple weeks ago, complete with threats to walk away from the game, I went back out this morning and shot a very respectable 93. It's even more respectable because it included two OBs and a ball in a hazard, so it could very easily have been down in the 80s. Thanks to those penalties, I was 11 over on the par 5s, and only 10 over on the other 14 holes. Ugh. Overall all aspects of my game were solid. Only two flubbed shots, and I really kept myself from getting bogged down by bad shots or bad breaks. I also had a couple of opportunities to play through other groups and I managed to hit magnificent shots every time I had an audience---a 270 yard drive down the middle when playing through on the 3rd hole, a 170ish yard 4I into the wind to the front fringe on a par 3, and a 235 yard drive down the center when another player was waiting near my tee box to look for his errant drive. It's really a nice feeling to look like you know what you're doing with an audience. Putting was pretty solid, very good distance control, and didn't miss anything from within about 6 feet. Unfortunately, I didn't make anything from outside there, but left I-don't-know-how-many balls within a foot of the cup, and a few within about 8 inches. Would have been nice if some of those had dropped, but I'll take machine-gun two-putt bogies all day.

Well, the 8s are plenty for me. Went out today and shot a good round---93 total score, or +21 (+22 relative to the rating). On the 14 holes that were par 3 or 4, I was +10 (11 bogeys, a birdie, and two pars), and on the par 5s I was +11 (three 8s and a 7). The frustrating thing is that my handicap index is pretty accurate, even with these holes---the blow-ups are regular enough that my handicap is only very slowly drifting down, by about 5 strokes in the last year and a half. I simply never string together enough holes without an explosion for these to induce too much bias in a stroke play situation. The 8s occur often enough for me that I would be pretty hosed if I had to stop counting at 7. I agree, though, that it should be par + X rather than an absolute number. However, whether you think my index makes sense depends on what you're doing with it. For me, I basically use it to track progress, so it's essentially like using it in a stroke play situation. My play today was a net 4 under par, but 5 over on the par 5s. In a handicapped match play situation, I'd be pretty hard to beat, and I think I'd be a pretty valuable addition to a handicapped scramble team because those formats take the blow ups out of the equation.

This is definitely true. A round usually looks like, "Bogey, Par, Bogey, Bogey, Par, Par, Double, EIGHT, NINE, Par..." My handicap is probably at least 8 strokes higher because of 3 or 4 holes every round. If you took my best dozen holes and multiplied by 1.5 to get an 18-hole score, you'd have a very wrong idea about how well I play. And this is the real truth. Giving serious prizes for a scramble is kind of silly.

This particular aspect of the rule annoys me. It's the sort of thing that basically never comes up, but I always imagine two golfers in late in a close match. One "aces" his provisional on a par 3. Both of them look at each other for a second, then drop their clubs and sprint down the course full tilt, one toward the deep rough and the other toward the green in a footrace to decide the outcome of the match. It's kind of comical, but I can't help but think it's not quite consistent with the genteel image that golf conjures.

Not silly, but also not difficult to answer. http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-27/#d27-2c-2 If a ball likely to be yours is found, you *must* identify it before playing your provisional. There are a bunch of other decisions there that clarify things.

I agree, but it's easy enough to remedy by market forces. If you're not willing to pay the price, skip the game. There's not an objectively fair price, except what the market will bear. The thing that I would complain about is when a team that has locked up its playoff situation decides to throw away the rest of its regular season games by resting/protecting its starters. This happened a few years ago with the Colts. Anyone who had paid ahead for one of the last couple games got screwed out of actually seeing an honest competition. Unlike the preseason games---which you know when you buy the tickets are just warm-up/exhibition---ticket buyers were misled into paying full price for a joke game.

And the best part is, no one will ever know who was right! (BTW, if DLIII doesn't like oatmeal, he should be replaced.)

I've seen this at a few places too. As I've argued too much elsewhere, I'm sympathetic to the "illegal" local rule, but I think following the rules is more important. Unless the rule is changed, I think it would be better for the courses not to create situations like yours where real competitions have to ignore the local rule. Someone should go bury a kiddie pool in the center of each native area. Poof. It's a hazard. Problem solved!

Of course, this is only a big issue if your provisional was a truly phenomenal shot. Most of the time, even if your provisional is in play, it's not that big a deal to go back and hit another shot instead of taking the provisional. (Except for the annoyance/pace of play factor, I guess.).

Fourputt's comment only applies to native grasses / woods that are adjacent to and can reasonably be treated as part of a water hazard. There has to be water inside the hazard, you can't just declare a dry native area to be a lateral hazard.

It's fine to disagree with his decision, but I think it's out of line to call it a "personal favor pick." Others have outlined some rational reasons to make the decision, and while you might disagree with them, it's a huge leap to accuse DL3 of putting personal favors ahead of his duty to assemble a winning team. It might be a personal reason, in the sense that his instincts play a part in making the decision, but that's different from its being a "personal favor." As for not going with the "hot" pick, so what? He changed his mind?

Had no idea it was IPA day. Just as well, I'm not a big IPA fan.. though I periodically challenge myself just in case my tastes have changed. This week was, coincidentally, one of those weeks and I got a mixed case from New Belgium (Colorado) Brewery that had two styles of IPA (Ranger and Belgo, a Belgian IPA), as well as a well-hopped red ale and their flagship Fat Tire. The IPAs were, as I remembered, just too overpoweringly hoppy for me to really get down with. Though I had a Ranger today, which is the more firmly hopped of the two, along with some shepherd's pie, and it was nice. I have a bit of a cold, though, so I suspect that my taste is a bit dulled, making the extreme hoppiness less objectionable. Glad to hear you're getting some ale action down in S.A. Lagers are nice, but sometimes you want something with a little more funk.