xcott
-
Posts
197 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by xcott
-
Ball at Rest Moved - How Would You Improve This Rule?
xcott replied to iacas's topic in Rules of Golf
I see no problem with replacing the ball in this situation after it was marked. The issue of don't know where it was before it moved is the same as other rules such as another ball hitting yours. If you don't know that it moved then there is nothing to do same as it is today. The current ball moving rule only applies if you know it moved it doesn't apply if youd don't know that it moved. Not quite. The curent rule asks golfer sto determine only if the golfer is the most likely cause. If a golfer were to believe that there was a 20% chance he moved it, a 20% chance the wind did, 20% that seismic activity did, 10% that a moving blade did, etc then the sum total of the other options is greater than 20% and thus more likely. That's how I read it, or is it the most likely compared to other options. I think it could be simpler if any movement not done by the golfer with intent after marking was not a stroke. -
Ball at Rest Moved - How Would You Improve This Rule?
xcott replied to iacas's topic in Rules of Golf
What about "after marking and replacing the ball"? -
I honestly don't expect the broadcasters to know the intricacies of every single golf rule. It would be nice, but not necessary. Access to someone who does would be just fine.
-
Exactly my point. We don't actually know how many balls may have moved. If DJ weren't watching the ball intently nobody would've noticed it moved. With the speed and slope of these greens the threshold of what can make the ball move has been lowered dramatically. Off the top of my head I can't think of a negative of allowing a player to replace a ball which was not moved via stroke on the green.
-
Yes, I understand the difference between course handicap and the HI. My issue with your above statement is the part where you say "about the exact same". A golfer should have the EXACT same HI if they score the EXACT same scores on the EXACT same tees at the EXACT same course. The female who shoots 75 from the tips peers are the men who shoot 75 from the tips, not the women who shoot 95 from the reds or the men who shoot 115 from the whites. This is the crux of it all for me. The entire point of the HI is to level the field for ALL golfers, but either they're admitting it does a poor job of that and they need different indexes for different kinds of golfers, or that there is some weird gender bias in the whole system where women should be oddly treated differently. If anyone should be mad it should be men who drive the ball at short distances because they aren't getting the benefit that the women get.
-
We don't know that it didn't move. It very well could have, but there wasn't a person standing right next to it watching it intently. I think they probably didn't misapply or misinterpret, I think that they came to the wrong conclusion on the % chance it was Dustin who made the ball move.
-
No gravity likely didn't change, although it's a weak force and over the time it's sitting there could slowly pull the ball down the slope. Because DJ didn't feel it doesn't mean it didn't happen and jsut because he didn't explain it didn't mean it didn't happen either. To move an object there needs to be a force, the lower the initial force needed the greater amount of things can affect the potential movement. With the slope and speed of the greens that floor was lowered dramatically.
-
However as the handicap is calculated, in such a scenario the woman would get a stroke advantage if she were to match a man stroke for stroke from the same tees on the same course. I think that seems weird and wrong.
-
Gravity, wind, seismic activity a strong fart from the gallery.
-
Is till maintain that with the slope and speed of these greens, the possibilities for the ball moving for reasons beside a putter go up dramatically.
-
No, not even close. What I'm saying is that the current handicap system already levels the playing field for people of varying skills, some of whom drive the ball with shorter distances. Why don't they have different course ratings for seniors or for average driving distance? So it makes sense to you that a woman with equal skill to a man should be given an advantage? That is the crux here. I maintain that a woman who shoots an 80 on the same tees on the same course as a man who shoots an 80 on the same course on the same tees are equal golfers.
-
Strength and Depth of Field in Jack's Day and Tiger's Day
xcott replied to Phil McGleno's topic in Tour Talk
I think that when Jack played the field was like the LPGA field in terms of depth about 10 years ago. I don't say this to bring down Jack to but to show how good Tiger really was. I truly believe what Tiger did might be the greatest sports accomplishment in history. If someone could repeat it today it would be even greater. -
I prefer the television broadcasters having the ability to speak honestly about the organization they are covering.They should be able to comment on the rules and what they think the rules should be. Also they should fire Joe Buck because he sucks at calling any sport,
-
If we've played the same course from the same tees 100 times and we both have shot 80 every single time and then I ask for an extra stroke because I'm a woman, would you feel disadvantaged?
-
I think the slope of the greens and the speed they are running at in that tournament actually favor the fact that DJ didn't move the ball.
-
I understand that is how it is, however I cannot fathom a mathematical justification for this. Why would they not is my question? No, this is what you think I'm not getting, but I think it's what youre not getting. two people playing from the same tees are playing the same golf course. Their genetailia is irrelevant to the equation. People over 80 don't hit the ball as far as people under 80, do they get a different handicap? The entire purpose of the handicap is to level the playing field. If you drive it shorter your handicap will likely be higher. (yes mistake earlier). Your sex should be completely irrelevant, as should your age or your arm strength or your previous injuries or any number of things which can make you drive the ball shorter distances than the average. Why is it that sex is the only thing that is used to try and re-level a supposed level playing field?
-
If he's a friend, give him something like the hogan book as a gift for his birthday.
-
If women are playing the same courses and the same tees, there is no justification for them to get different handicaps. Their shorter driving distance should be exposed in their actual handicap. If two people play from the whites on the same course 100 times and every single time they both shoot 85, then they should have the same handicap. Their sex should be irrelevant. The entire purpose of the handicap is to equalize different players to play against each other. If the average woman drives the ball 50 yards shorter than the average man, then the average womans handicap should likely be lower. There is no mathematical need for a modification. That's exactly what's happening here. Having the tees rated differently for women doesn't make sense. So if she shoots the same score as the man she gets a lower handicap. And i can find no justification for that difference other than someone saying that women would not play if their handicaps were so much higher than mens, which I think is insulting.
-
They hit farther than some men. Driving distance doesn't figure directly into the HI calculation, just what you scored on a course. I would expect in general women to have a higher HI, but the point of the HI is to even the playing field. If a woman can average a 72 from the white tees, whey does she get more strokes than a guy who can also average 72 from the white tees? In the end like you say it wouldn't matter. If I have to become a 37 and the guy who is a 10 is now a 20, it's not any different. I would think that all golfers would be treated equally, you don't get a different HI when you're over 80 and I bet they drive it shorter too. It just doesn't make mathematical sense to me. Treating women like they are too fragile to handle a HI compared to men is kind of insulting isn't it?
-
I had no idea, but it still doesn't make sense to me. If a woman shoots 72 from the white tees and a man shoots 72 from the white tees whey would they get different treatment? I can't fathom any mathematical reason that they should get a different handicap.
-
It's constitutionally accepted that certain arms can be kept out of civilian hands.
-
FS1 and FS2 both show no replay of the usopen. I do like more shot tracers that Fox likes to deploy. Joe buck however ruins everything he touches.
-
The litmus test for a law isn't whether some people will break it once it's enacted.
-
Is fox showing any us open replays? Anything for the working stiffs to watch when they get home? I can't find anything.
-
I own guns and am ok with banning some or even all of them.