klineka

He's an idiot if he actually traded that in. He could get $200+ easily online for that shaft alone.

I'd compare the trade in value vs what similar ones have sold for recently, there's a pretty high chance you can sell it yourself for more than the trade in value plus you'd get to keep the shaft you like.

Since you're staying with the same brand why wouldn't you just swap your current shaft into the new head? You could then take the old head and the "new" shaft and pair those up and sell that on like FB Marketplace or something.

Interesting. To me "a cup" is a unit of measurement just like "a ball" is in this scenario. To me a ball out means "the aiming spot is the width of one ball from the edge of the hole", so Y, and half a ball out would be Z. Just like half a cup is C and a cup is B

Why? The size of the ball is constant just like the size of the hole is constant. People might be better at gauging the size of the hole better than the size of the ball but the exact same logic should apply, right?

Maybe I should write a model that automatically spits out "Tiger is the GOAT" no matter what the prompt is.

Why are wins the only thing that matters in terms of results? If there were two players and Player A won a regular PGA tour event and an opposite field event with 0 other top 3s but Player B's only win was like a signature event or The Players and 6 top 3s or something I'd have a hard time saying Player A had a better season simply because they had more wins.

Yeah, that's specifically what I was talking about since the MLR is only on the PGA Tour.

That's specifically what I was referring to, not to the general rule. How wouldn't a clause that includes cracked face as justification for replacement but requiring it to be replaced with the same spec club not be an improvement to the MLR? Wouldn't that solve the issue you outlined a few posts ago, the potential issue of players swapping to a different club to gain an advantage? The part that I think is stupid (regardless of who actually wrote the rule) is that someone's club can be damaged enough to have a direct impact on the ball flight but they aren't allowed to replace it. That seems stupid to me. I'm struggling to think of another sport where a competitor is forced to use a broken tool/instrument that affects their performance simply because it's not broken "enough".

Seems like that could easily be solved by saying that the replacement club has to be of the same make, model, loft, shaft, length, etc, right?

I'm confused by this. IMO it doesn't matter on what tour(s) the rule applies or who asked for it, the fact that the rule exists at all is stupid.

Man I really wish I I knew I could have dug my basement out deeper when building my new house then I could have had a full enclosure like this instead of having to do a retractable setup in my garage.

Same here. Going to give it a watch soon too.

Nah, you can't prove that he would hurt his scoring average had he finished on Sunday. You might be right, but you can't prove that you're right because it's an unknown/unprovable situation. It is, for a fact, unknown if he would have harmed himself had he finished on Sunday. There isn't really anything to agree or disagree about there. You can't prove that he would have been harmed had he finished on Sunday, but it is a provable fact that it is unknown if he would have harmed himself had he finished on Sunday. I've never said once that I expect Kuchar to care about my position. No shit only his matters, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it and I am well within my right to call him out on his opinion. I'm not criticizing his actions because they are different than the decision I would have made, I'm criticizing his actions because they were selfish, arrogant, lacking empathy, etc. That's not that difficult of a concept to understand.

I know that his actions (which were avoidable) inconvenienced roughly 70-100 people. while only benefitting himself. (And not benefitting himself in any significant/substantial manner) Right but you originally claimed that he would have been harmed by finishing Sunday. Now you're saying that it's impossible to say. You can't have that both ways. This is where we disagree. Given the circumstances of what scoring low on 18 meant for Kuchar's well-being, rankings, playoffs, his families well-being, etc. I don't think it was reasonable to wait for the next day. Like cool he made par and kept his positioning where a bogey would have lost him $58k. Based on what we have heard about the kind of person he is it's highly unlikely he went above and beyond to throw a little extra cash towards the people who he made come back out to the course (some of which were probably volunteers). Bottom line is that action he chose was selfish and greedy and it is unknown if he would have harmed himself had he finished on Sunday. Those are facts. Absolutely absurd logic. Playing in the rain is a detriment to score, playing in wind is a detriment to score, we do those things all the time.

@p1n9183 claimed Kuchar would have been harmed had he finished Sunday which is not something we know for a fact.

How would him have finishing the hole on Sunday harmed himself? As multiple people in this thread have already stated, whether he made birdie par or bogey it would not have affected his playoff positioning, change his ability to support himself/his family financially, and his job security for next season. Also you're assuming that had he played it out on Sunday that automatically would have brought "harm" (whatever that means) onto himself. For all we know he might have hit a better shot on Sunday than he did Monday. It is a fact that his decision benefitted himself while inconveniencing dozens to possibly 100+ others. It is not a fact that had he finished the hole Sunday that would have brought harm onto himself.

All of that ^^^ Not to mention there was probably (don't know for certain but usually this is the case) some sort of hospitality event/tournament on the course today, it's quite common for that to happen the Monday after a tour event. So it's possible that he could have caused that to be delayed as well. There is so much that goes into running PGA Tour events that most people don't consider. Like the fact that due to Kuchar's decision (yes I'm aware it was within the rules) things like the ShotLink equipment had to remain up and operational through his play this morning which likely affected plans to get that equipment to Memphis for the next event. Here is basically how it boils down to me: The decision he made only benefited himself and inconvenienced dozens to possibly 100+ others. The decision he could have made could have slightly inconvenienced himself (for about 15 minutes) with basically no risk whatsoever to his playoff status, financial well-being, job security, etc while making life significantly easier for dozens to possibly 100+ other people. In my opinion him putting himself first over 50-100 other people while he has basically nothing to gain makes him selfish, arrogant, out of touch, etc and gives me absolutely no reason to like him. And FWIW, I think the reaction he is getting from fans and the media is absolutely justified especially considering he has a history of being selfish, lacking empathy, etc.

Idk about all worked up, but I think it's perfectly acceptable to call out when an athlete is being extremely selfish and inconveniencing quite a few people when it was easily avoidable. If he was a rookie/fighting for a tour card, had a chance to make the playoffs, etc. I would likely feel a bit different but the only thing that his result on that hole affected was his own wallet and the guy has made nearly $60M on the course during his career.

There is. Hit the ball as far as you safely can (safely meaning avoiding penalty stroke hazards) Aim for the center of the green Have good speed control on the greens If you can do those 3 things consistently you're going to be better than most golfers you'll see.

I thought for a second you meant a golf ball that was quite literally clear. Like see through.

Are they identical clubheads? What about the shafts?

Those aren't really fair comparisons because Bryson and DT (And Bryson and Grant) were a team playing together to try and shoot a specific score, Grant and Phil were playing a 1v1 match against each other with something on the line. If Grant and Phil were on a team I'd like to think that Phil would have helped Grant out as well.

Still is so shocking to me that a swing that looks like that results in a 16.9hcp. If I had to guess based on the swing I'd easily guess 10 strokes lower than that.

The original quote was The only golf course that has been provided as a example wasn't even one that he built, he bought it. @Beastie used golf courses as in plural but has only talked about Turnberry. I'm still waiting to hear the multiple courses that he built (aka designed, created from scratch, not bought, etc) that are considered "amazing" Amazing is obviously subjective and also relative to the quantity and quality of the courses each individual person has played. Someone who has played half of the courses on the top 100 is going to have a different opinion of what an amazing golf course is compared to someone who has only been playing for a few years and has played mostly public tracks around them plus one or two private courses.