MRR

I think both those opinions state the same thing and give a perfect example of why one would say "yes" or "no". Personally, I hate the "he's afraid", "here's how I felt" part of the commentating. Since that is pretty much the only reason that winning at all is beneficial, I voted no. I'd rather listen to a well-spoken individual than someone who has simply "won". Those out there who voted "yes"; good, you are their intended market. It's not like I'm going to turn off the TV just because I dislike a single announcer. Two of them together? Maybe. But my money won't be missed. I watch the LPGA a lot and despise the former-player-commentary almost as much as the moronic "how well does the caddie know the player" shtick.

While true, the path to enforcement of this rule is still subject to the vagueness of "intent". Compound that with empirical evidence that can somehow be taken either way and you have a rule without any teeth. So, while I agree with your statement, my opinion is that the application of the stated rule, especially in BL's case, shows that the attempt to "limit the way they are used" has been proven to not be "reasonable". On several occasions, BL appears to be making an illegal swing.

The difference, at least to me, is the potential benefit. Putter; Intentionally using it with an illegal swing, provides the player with a benefit of more accurate putts. It is difficult to accidentally putt incorrectly if one continues to practice it correctly*. Dropping a coin; Intentionally doing that is not going to help the player out in a statistically significant way. To the left, "dropping a coin" has a very obvious visual result. As did that other player who put the ball down about 1/2" away. Intent is of no consequence when the result is objective. Having a get out of jail free card for saying "unintentional" does make this rule more lenient. *This is my big problem with BL's excuses. If you have to swing legally in five seconds, why would practice with an illegal swing right now. It's priming your body to do it the illegal way. EDIT: I see that iacas has show the "coin" rule is not a rule any more. The gist of my argument stands, though. One can accidentally ground a club in a trap. That's a penalty where intent has no bearing.

Fine. They placed a single restriction that forbids the stroke style that popularized the club in the first place. IMO, that's still the same thing as trying to ban something without manning up and saying that you want to ban it.

From day one, it sounded to me like they want the equipment to just disappear, but they didn't want to be the ones to do it. So, instead, they placed a lot of restrictions on how a long putter can be used in the hopes that players would just stop using them.

Absolutely. Saying "it was accidental" should be enough to give one the benefit of the doubt for the first two times. After that, you've been on notice that you are doing it incorrectly. Part of the issue is that enforcement has been ignored for so long that now some people think it's "unfair" to enforce it. This is a horrible outcome of something that looks a lot like Decision by Committee. There was probably a reason that sounded really good a the time to not ban them outright. Now that legal strokes and enforcement has proven difficult, they should readdress the issue.

EDIT; But if your concern is more of the "second hand smoke is an issue, while driving across a green never gave anyone cancer"; I agree. My point is the difference between "privacy of your own home" vs. "owner flaunting the rules in front of other people". Eh, smoking was a bad example on my part. How about a dressy restaurant where the owner sits at a window-side table and wears just shots and a mustard stained tank top?

Plenty of municipalities allow for outdoor smoking, just to have the local business not allow it in their particular patio.

True. But a more applicable scenario; There is a no smoking policy on the patio, but the owner lights up cigars all day. Whatever reason for the initial rule is frustrated, and it can lead to others either breaking said rules themselves or being upset that they are not allowed to do the same. It is the difference between lawful and equitable.

As I said, it's a personal mantra. I merely stated my personal views on how I feel I should behave to give insight as to the basis of my opinions. I have never, and would never, call out someone else for it. Not sure how much ligher I could be about it. Just don't touch my stuff. Argh; I cannot respond without becoming political.

I'm no groundskeeper, but the greens where I tend to play are sandier and softer than the rest of the course, to allow for drainage. This also allows for more damage due to downward pressure. Admittedly, very little. Even if it does do damage, the effect of such damage on the player is mitigated by the fact that the player can choose where he stands and the ball sits on a tee. It's really the attitude of it. Why does a golfer need to bring the weight and potential damage of all his clubs there? He's not benefiting himself much by doing so. It's not a horrible breach of etiquette (if it even is a breach); it's just a personal rule that I follow. For pure transparency; I often golf with my father. He has a bad hip and gets a flag for the cart and permission to drive on the course closer to the greens than others are allowed. I'm not a fan. But, if the course is going to allow it, so be it.

That's not quite a fair statement either. Pounds per square inch comes into play here. Small/thin tires on a push cart can do more damage compared to larger tires on a heavier cart. It just depends on weight and surface area. But, I'm pretty sure that cart tires would have to be a lot larger to distributed the weight enough to protect the green. 1) I don't even walk on the green while carrying a bag. Hell, I don't even walk on a tee box with a bag and get upset when I see other people drag their push-carts through one. 2) The damn cart is motorized! The individual in question saved himself about three seconds. It is certainly rude. Using the mathematical formula of (commonality of the knowledge of the etiquette (C)) * (Extrinsic purpose of the etiquette (P) divided by (individual benefits gained (I)) [ CP/I formula]; I am of the opinion that this was an intentional act as well.

Obeying the laws would be nice. I almost drove into two cyclists who decided that stop signs didn't apply to them. Glad I noticed in time. Remember the motto is "Share the Road". Not "Take the Road". I used to commute to work along a very winding country road that made it unsafe to be in the other lane for more than about 100 feet at a time. It was not infrequent to have a cyclist going 10 mph in a 55 hanging as far to the left as he could so that I was unable to pass. Cyclists are a hassle on the road for cars (and vice versa). That's simply a matter of fact. I'm happy to put up with that hassle so they can enjoy their activities. I do my best to get out of their way, I just want to be treated with the same courtesy.

Thank you for pointing out that there is a difference. I've never really looked at it that way. We must use words slightly differently. I swear that in your earlier post you stated that given just the numbers, you could say exactly where to aim (without needing to read the green at all). Which I take to mean that if someone else gave you those numbers, you could perfectly hit a location that you personally could not see. Sorry if I am misinterpreting anything. Sure. I was trying to find some logical reason for their proposed ban and how the ban would contradict that. Since that's double hypothetical on my part, no need to continue that line.

I have no reason to doubt that you are an expert at putting. However, I still find it difficult to believe that being given only numbers, you will be able to putt the ball over the correct spot on the green without any markings showing where that "hole" is. THAT would be a great video. If you whip out a book to mark your score, you have already putted. No reason to even care if the book is "illegally marked". I misspoke a bit about "walking on the green". AFAIK, Aimpoint is the only one that has the golfer walking in front of balls, and that was my concern. I do agree with you (I'd be a fool not to) that it involves less walking overall.

I'm not even sure one can compare a network's single coverage of a Major event to another network that covers minor events every week. Frankly, I was hoping for a bit more out of Fox since the event was a Major, but still forgave them a lot because it's their only event. But your points are well noted. Something about the flow of it seemed off to me. I cannot say if that made it worse or if it was just that I'm used to NBC's style. 1. Agreed. 3. Absolutely 5. Never cared for swing analysis, so I enjoyed the lack. Human Interest is so hit or miss that I'm glad they didn't gamble. All in all, I think the coverage was quite good. Some of the commentary was rough, but I can forgive it. Now if we can get the LPGA coverage to be similar instead of ridiculous game show moments of how much a caddie knows about the golfer.

EDIT: One other point; "He said the fear is that players will just read a book and not actually read the putt." Seems to not be a good reason. (Again, I think "we get to make the rules" is a fine enough reason and trying to explain things introduces more problems, but anyway). Aimpoint Express seems to me to be the quickest and best system. Said system still has golfers walking all over the green to get reads. I think it would help the game, both is pace and spirit, to allow the pros to make more putts and reduce the amount of walking they need to do on the green. You cannot complain about your ball being diverted due to a footprint from someone in the group ahead of you if that golfer never need to step there in the first place.

Seems like a silly fear. I have trouble believing that someone can sink even a five foot putt if all they have to go by is numbers. Trying to state a reason to ban green reading books without outlawing yardage books might be hard. But simply outlawing them without giving a reason is easy. And, according to many people in the "dress code" forum, banning without lengthy explanations is preferred. "Green reading books are outlawed". Done. Anyone who whips out a book while on the green sure seems to be in violation of that. Anyone looking at a book prior to getting to the green is most likely not getting specific enough information for it to matter. The problem with allowing books without numbers (or anything else that allows for looking at printed material on the green while only a particular type is outlawed) is that now people can still look at books on the green. At some point, certain golfers will start adding codes to show all the "illegal" information, but it will be difficult to prove.

I've seen that a lot when laypersons try to write rules. They feel that giving an explanation for how the authority exists and why the rule is being implemented somehow makes a possibly divisive decision more palatable or enforceable. Not only is no value added, but value is taken away. Ridiculous introductions provide new areas to attack. "Shirts must have collars" means just that. "In order to protect rights and privileges" now means that I should have the right to wear what I want because I'm privileged.

If you are fine golfing with your ten-year-old daughter and being paired up with a stranger wearing a Borat Mankini, then I will acknowledge that you believe in what you said. If you are not fine with the above, then you agree with censorship and simply have a different definition of what is correct censorship.

The video posted in #15 shows; 1) While making the stroke, there is a wrinkle in the shirt that is supported by the arm, 2) After the arm moves very slightly away from the body, the shirt "falls" and the wrinkle comes out. It appears to me that the weight and drape of the shirt is enough to not allow such a wrinkle unless the arm was actually pressed against the body.

Outside of possibly "the wind", I consider all of those to still be personal blame. I, at least, am man enough to know that Course Conditions can horrible affect my shot while further knowing that it's my personal skill that makes me unable to compensate for it. Course conditions this past weekend caused the ball to sit so high on the grass that I went under the ball a few times. Course Condition was the fault, but my (lack of good and consistent) skills made it so I couldn't compensate. To the original question; I take that as he cannot give "swing adjustments" (your grip is too strong) or even "swing tips" (hit it like this for more backspin on this shot). With that understanding, I think that the information Jack could give to an 18 handicapper is either too limited (18 handicapper should know which side of the fairway is higher and how the ball will roll, so we're looking at very subtle things like how a particular green reacts to a shot from that specific angle and distance) or not relevant to the player's ability ("make a Mickelson swing to get the ball 20 feet in the air while traveling only two feet"). I honestly think it's zero, but I went with 1-2. If, on the other hand, Jack could give advice like "you aren't good enough to make it; lay up with a 7", he can probably save 4-5.

As I said before, I may have been projecting, but I saw a child being very frustrated and not especially having a good time. That's the sort of "instruction" that I had early on by my father that turned me AWAY from golf for 15 years. It wasn't "having fun wacking at balls", it was "being 'taught' but not getting anywhere". IMO, It's one thing if a child is simply having a good time and doesn't care about skill, it's another if the child does care and the parent incorrectly thinks that he is helping his child improve. BTW, I don't think you are in the minority on this one.

Mine is really how confusing some of the language is. It's difficult to know how to hold a club when books say to have about as light a grip as you can, but people tell you that your grip is too "weak". Really; who came up with "strong" and "weak" to describe "rotated clockwise or counterclockwise"? Seeds on the green? That's so horrible I'd never come up with it. That's even worse than people who seemingly intentionally play slow.

Knee-length white sports socks are pretty much required attire for fencing. Hard to believe I have all the correct attire to play at a snooty club.