trackster

This is were I struggle the most when trying to keep up with a group in front of me. I always wait until the group is a ways out (in most cases too far) and it's based on previous experience. While I know what my averages are, I have had enough experiences of hitting that extra 20-30 yards on a shot to stop me from pulling the trigger on some situations. One particular case I was 240 out after hitting a pretty sub par drive. There was a group of 3 on the green and a group behind us on the tee. I decided to hit a 4-iron and seeing how far away I was I had no worries about hitting into them. Well, sure enough I struck an amazing shot that laded 10 yards short of the green and rolled right up to them. I apologized on the next tee and they let me play through, but it was definitely a situation I would like to avoid if possible. The problem is when I wait to hit a shot when I am in that 200-240 out range out and I end up coming well short of the green or hit a terrible shot and thus I wasted all that time.

A course marshal doesn't scold you for playing the tips and actually remarks "I see why you play back there."

I think that a good/great golfer is one who rarely "wastes" shots. I am currently getting back into the game after a year hiatus. Before this break I was able to shoot in the high 70's on easy courses and low to mid 80's on more challenging courses. Currently I am now struggling to break 90. My distances, ball striking, putting etc. seems to be the same as before my break; however, I now have 4-5 "garbage" shots per round where my shot in no way helps me out or advances my situation on the hole. Topped balls leading to grass burners, fat shots that come up well short, skulling chips, or hitting my drive off the fairway into trouble all lead to strokes here or there. When I shot my few rounds in the high 70's and low 80's I rarely would hit shots as I described above. I have a friend who is amazing at "scrambling" through holes. Just recently, on a par 4, he hit a duck hook off the tee into a line of trees. On his second he topped the ball and hit a grass burner another 50 yards forward. On his third he stuck an iron shot from 150 out to about 6 inches from the pin and recorder par. I on the other hand hit the fairway with my drive, placed my approach on the green, and two putted for par. Although we scored the same on the hole, I would say that his play on the hole would describe how an average golfer's round would go (inconsistent shots with a few great ones sprinkled in) and my play on the hole would describe how you would expect a good golfer to play (consistent shooting with green in regulation being a commonality).

Wait. If you think that the fairway grass is too long and you lose a ball that you think is in the fairway you are going to drop with no penalty? How can you justify that? I have played some pretty unkept courses and I have never seen a fairway with grass long enough that you couldn't find a ball on it. I've had many instances where I and/or playing partners have thought that we lost a ball that should be in the fairway and every single time the answer is that the ball did not end up in the fairway. Just this month I hit a very long drive that was headed right for the middle of the fairway. I walked the middle of the fairway expecting to find my ball but once I got into the area of the drive being around 300 yards I realized that my ball was not in the fairway. Turns out that my ball had traveled about 5 yards into the right rough. I would have had no idea where that ball was if my friend hadn't hit his tee shot into the right rough as well. Depending on fairway slopes and the spin on your ball there is always a possibility that a shot that looks to be in the fairway will end up in the rough.

I find this rule extremely hard to follow in certain situations. However, as many others have said there is really no other way to handle it. The ball is lost, thus there is no way to drop and proceed in the general area "you think" that the ball is lost. With that being said, I will admit that I very rarely go back and re-hit after a lost ball. However, I also use the appropriate handicap scoring for that hole and have to unfortunately no longer consider that round for any sort of personal best. The only time I will go back and play the ball from the last spot it was hit from is if the course is empty or if i am playing tournaments (hopefully I had already played a provisional ball). I had a situation a few weeks ago when a group of four very poor and very slow golfers were playing in front of me and did not let me play through despite the course being open in front of them. On one hole I was sitting on the tee box they were hitting from (that's how much I had caught up to them) and watched as two of the golfers sprayed their balls into the weeds on the right. No provisionals were played. After an excessive search for these balls (that were clearly gone) I heard one of the golfers shout "Do you want to go back to the tee and hit again?." While I know that this is technically the way to proceed, I couldn't help but become extremely irritated thinking that this group that was already backing up the entire course was going to come back to the tee and hit again. Thankfully they just dropped and played on.

That is a valid point; however, I don't think transgender people are stoked about having or expressing the anatomy of their biological gender. From what I was understanding from watching the show, Jazz had not had gender reassignment surgery but was taking hormones. She was incredibly self conscious about covering up anything that associated her with the male anatomy. I agree that female to male transgender people who want to compete in male sports will be seen as a non-issue. Primarily because females playing male sports is usually allowed. You make a good point that this will only be seen as an issue if the transgender athlete is dominating in women's sports. However, I think that ability should be irrelevant in this debate. As I stated earlier, it is not like we allow boys who are poor athletes to play in girls' sports' leagues.

Dynamic Warm Up Power cleans: 1x5 @ 95, 1x3 @ 145, 1x3 @ 155 w/ x5 rebo und jumps after each set Bench Press: 1x5 @ 95, 1x3 @ 145, 1x3 @ 155 w/ x5 seat ed box jumps after each set Dead Lift: 1x5 @ 135, 2x3 @ 225 w/ x5 altitude drops after each set Bicep curls and skull crushers to finish

I completely agree with everything you have stated here. Very concise and well put. The part I have bolded is where I think the process with this issue will get tricky. Compromising is usually something that the transgender cause is trying to avoid (and rightfully so in most instances). I use to think that the locker room/bathroom situation was a problem; however as I learned more about transgender people I realized that it makes more sense for them to use the locker room they identify with. They aren't transgender to get to go into locker rooms and see other people, they are transgender because they actually identify with the opposite sex, therefore it is likely more of a problem to have them use the locker room of their biological sex. One of the arguments made by Jazz's parents on the show about letting her compete in women's sports was that she is not a great player and a non-agressive athlete. I feel like this is a poor argument and ability can't really be used as a justifier. We don't have boys who are poor athletes growing up play in girls sports leagues.

0.5 Up Dynamic Warmup 8x200 @40-45 w/ ~2:30 rest 0.5 Down

I am currently watching a show called "I am Jazz" about a transgender (biologically a boy and identifies as female) youth. While I am pro about the transgender cause, there is one particular topic that I am very torn on and that is athletics. Jazz is not allowed to compete in sports with other girls because she was born a male. I am curious as to what others think on this issue and hope to hear strong arguments for or against it. As of now I believe that transgender athletes should not be allowed to compete in the sex that they identify as (or in other words opposite of their biological sex). First and foremost I think that safety is a large issue. There is currently concern about a transgender UFC fighter who is injuring the women that she fights. However, this argument is less valid in non-contact sports such as golf and tennis. Secondly, the athletic advantage (albeit strength, speed, stamina, etc.) of men over women is very prominent and thus it is 'unfair" to let these transgender athletes compete. I am unfamiliar with men trying to hide their identity and compete in women's competitions in other sports; however, this practice is common in track and field. In cases where these men are discovered disqualification is the obvious result. If transgender athletes are allowed to compete in the gender they identify as could there be anyway logical means of stopping non-transgender athletes from competing across genders? I am curious as to others opinions and insights.

I'm not sure this really counts, but on hole eight at my home course (a par 3) there is a steep hill about five to ten yards from the left of the green. On the hill is the cart path that eventually leads to the 9th tee box. One round I hit a slight hook that landed right on the cart path. Seeing as the cart path is only 10 yards from the edge of the green it didn't seem like that bad of a hit. However, due to the spin on the ball and the angle of the cart path the ball shot straight left after impacting the path and proceeded to roll all the way down the hill onto the fairway of hole ten. The end results was me being just past pin high and about 100-120 yards left of the green.

I've been a bit fortunate that my two most notable golf moments, a 20 yard chip in from a spot that I had no right to get within 20 feet of the hole from for my first ever birdie and an albatross, have come with an audience. It is pretty surprising considering I play almost all my rounds as a single. On a slightly unrelated note I made my first (and only) hole in one in disc golf by myself. Made sure to call my friend as I walked up to the basket haha.

I can understand doing it to try to stay ahead of groups or stay on pace of play. But doing it to try to push a group is a bit silly.

My friend just told me about another wtf moment he had while playing with his uncle recently. The starter decided to let my friend and his uncle tee off before a 5-some on hole one (even though the 5-some's tee time was before theirs). This 5-some was extremely agitated at the starter's decision (and their agitation was likely increased by my friend and his uncle both putting a ball in the water on the first tee). Anyways, my friend said that for the next 3 or 4 holes that this 5-some was not only playing even with them but coming close to pushing them. My friend commented to his uncle how fast this group was playing behind them and his uncle replied, "Well, they aren't putting." For the first 4 holes this group of 5 had been hitting their balls to the green and then picking up right away and rushing to the next hole. By hole five the 5-some had decided to finally putt things out and my friend and his uncle pulled away like you would expect a 2-some to. I think it is ridiculous that a group would forgo putting on a few holes just to try to push a group.

Well, this thread escalated quickly.

If you think it sounds fun then there is really no harm in trying it out. I personally think that movements that push breaches of rules are detrimental to the game. When I started following the rules I found that I had a lot more fun. It was easy to compare rounds and tell if I was getting better. I couldn't imagine trying to play the way I did when I started the game. In addition, I feel like my game improved because I got practice playing shots from poor lies. Your concern about this is the same as mine. I feel like this will only hurt you when you go back to playing by the rules.

No. People's opinions on pace of play have been influenced by experience with golfers backing up a course with slow play. It's not selfish to expect a reasonable pace of play for golf; however, it is selfish to think that your pace of play is a non-issue because you are entitled to a "peaceful round." I think you need to bother to read all of your posts. Sure you have stated that you would have been better off letting them play through; however you have constantly battled that they were in the wrong rushing you with "speed golf." (Can someone please define what "speed golf" is for me?) You even complained of dropping strokes from feeling rushed. You may not be a slow player, but you played this 18 slow. 3:32 with an open course for a single is slow. And yes I would adjust my pace of play for anyone (including you). If they are playing at a faster pace than me then I would let them play through. And if they are holding me up I will patiently wait and by no means try to hit into them. However, if you drag me around the course when I am clearly playing at a faster pace than you, I will take issue with that and there will likely be a different sided conversation after the 18th green than you had. I think we need more to the story than was given in the OP. He says that they played 4 holes in about the time it took him to play 2, then he played ahead of them for the next 5, then they were able to hit into him on 18? I think the group behind was closer on holes 12-17 then we are lead to believe. Don't joke about ADHD. I know people who actually have it and it's not funny. I agree he shouldn't of waited for them on the 18th tee. He should have let them play through long before that. And no this is not about speed golf (again I need a definition). This was a poor decision by a golfer who decided to hit a ball into a green that someone was occupying.

The part I bolded is what doesn't sit right with me. Just because you had a group behind you does not mean that you were "rushed." If you felt rushed, why didn't you keep your normal pace and let them pass? From what you described they made up 4 holes by the time you went from hole 10 to hole 12. At this pace they would have passed you by 14 or 15. What you have described has nothing to do with "speed golf" (what ever that is...). It was just poor decision making on their part to hit into a green that you were on. Playing 3:32 as a single on an open course is slow, in addition you said that you "sped up" suggesting that your round would have been even slower. The suggested time is set up in a manor that would cover every possible group playing, or most notably a group of four. Just because you are "ahead of pace" does not mean that you are not expected to let faster groups play through.

I have had the same experience from teeing it forward. A couple years ago I played two rounds from the most forward tees at my home course (~5300 yards; ~65.0/113) and carded a 75 (+3) and 77 (+5). Despite these being the two lowest scores of my life I actually shot right on my handicap for the 75 and over my handicap for the 77. My rounds of 80-84 from the tips were much better at establishing a lower handicap. I think the reason behind this is that you have to be able to "score" the more forward you move. By that I mean you have to be able to get a handful of birdies a round. My home course is par 72, therefore, to shoot around scratch from the most forward tees you would have to shoot around -7 in comparison to the tips where you have to shoot around +1. I simply am not good enough to card multiple birdies, no matter which tee I am playing from. In addition, if you have a blowup hole from the shorter tees that score is going to hurt your handicap more than if you had it from farther back tees with higher course and slope ratings.

I don't think I would switch at all. How often do you find yourself needing to hit a shot that is in the 200-220 range? From what you have said in your post, you seem like a long hitter with your 3 wood and are likely even longer with your driver. Based on those distances, it unlikely that you are going to need to address a gap at the long range, because your second shots are going to come from 200 and in. If the handicap in your profile and the distances you have mentioned are correct, then chances are your are missing greens in regulation. Thus a setup focused more towards the short game (like you already have) seems to be better suited for you.

Yeah, I definitely agree that it is a money grab. However, I said that it makes sense to charge because this person is on the course and is presumably walking on the course and not just sitting in the cart. However, I think you make a good point in that I have never seen a course charge for a non-player walking fee. As soon as my course instituted the "per seat" paying rule, I saw a man argue that if he is having to pay a separate cart fee then he wanted a separate cart. However, the course held firm and made them share a cart.

This past weekend my girlfriend and I took our annual trip to Bully Pulpit Golf Course, which is one of the finer courses in North Dakota. She plays a little, but this course is extremely difficult for newer players so she was just along for the ride to take pictures and film my round. As I am finishing up paying for my fee in the clubhouse,my girlfriend walks up to me at the counter (she had been in the bathroom) and the person behind the counter tells me that they have a ride along fee. I have no problem with paying for a ride along fee, however, nothing on their website or behind the counter would have let me know that they have a ride along fee. If my girlfriend hadn't walked up to me at the counter I would have never even known to pay for this extra fee. How do courses you golf at handle non-players that are riding along? The course nearby that I play the most has switched from a standard cart fee to having you pay on a "per seat" basis regardless of if the extra seat is playing or not. It makes sense to have a ride along fees or to make golfers pay on a per seat basis. However, I could see it also deterring people from taking others along with them when they golf. Having non-golfers riding along could be a great way to interest them in the game. Overall I don't think it is that big of an issue either way, but I am definitely curious as to your opinions.

Definitely agree. The most forward tees at my course are 5300 yards and rated something like 65/109 and the back tees are 6600 and rated around 72/120. I played two rounds last year from the most forward tees and shot a 77 and 75 ( my two lowest 18s ever); however, since the course was rated so low I actually shot over my handicap in the 77 round and about right on it in the 75 round. You would have to shoot -7 to -8 from these tees to play scratch golf. The problem with easy rated courses is that the blow ups and mistakes still happen. Blow up holes from the most forward tees are going to cost you more than they would from the back tees.

That's still way to short. To play courses that are 7000+ effectively (meaning that you can actually reach every par 4 in two shots) you need about 250-275 off the tee at least. If you are only hitting 200 off the tee then the longest par 4 that you could reach in two shots (driver/3 wood) would be about 385 yards. Courses that are 7000+ will usually have par 4s that are longer than 450 yards.

It's about the polar opposite at my home course. I'm one of a handful of people that I have ever seen play the "tips". However, the tips at my course are usually only a 15-25 yard difference then the middle tees so it is not that adventurous to play back there. In fact I think the most common tee box used is the most forward (lots of senior players). I'm always waiting to run into that guy who shouldn't be playing the tips but I haven't yet. We usually play about just under 3 hours walking together. We usually play extremely fast, we were both track guys and so we walk at a pretty brisk pace. I know my game improved when I moved to longer tees because it forced me to hit those 170+ yard second shots. Driver and pitching wedge every hole gets boring. In theory that is the idea. But I was wondering if there has been any data to support it. I've found I usually shoot similar scores when I play the middle or back tees. At my home course it is actually advantageous for me to play the back tees because some of the fairways dogleg and if I play from the forward tees my driver usually is long enough to go through the doglegs into the rough. From the back tees I don't have to worry about this. On another hole there is water that crosses the fairway. From the middle tees it is 270 to reach the water (which I have done many times) but from the back tees it is 320 to the water so I can just hack away.