ghalfaire

You're correct. I should have just gone up and hit the provisional before the ball in play was found. But as said I am the new guy in the league and didn't really want to start out with upsetting a long time member.

Thanks to all of you for your responses. So you know, it wasn't me that found the ball, it was the fellow that said I had to look for it (of course). Since I take time to read the rule book once in awhile I am pleased I did understand the rule. I also agree with the above comments that if you say you don't want to look for the ball, IMO it is poor sportsmanship for your competitor to go look for your ball. But there is some Karma I guess as the fellow cut his arm up a little in the thicket finding my ball. Lots of sticking & thorny plants in AZ.

So, yesterday while playing with the men's club at a local course, I managed to put a drive into a thick stand of trees & bushes on the right side of the fairway. Suspecting I might not be able to find the ball and the trees are not a penalty area, I announced that I would hit a provisional ball. As the old saying of "same golfer, more experience" would imply I striped the provisional ball down the middle. As I was proceeding to my first ball I could see that even if I found it that it would certainly be unplayable and without relief within two club lengths. Also the line formed between where I suspected the ball was and the flag was,would not be very appealing as I would have to go back a about 30-50 yards from the first trees and would have had to hit the ball out of the rough over the trees to get back to the fairway or chip out and lay 3 about a 100 yards short of my provisional ball. Not only that but these particular trees are not friendly to humans trying to find a ball, lots of things to stick you in there. Thus, I decided I would not look for the ball as I was sure the rules didn't require one to do that if they choose not to. But one to the players in the foursome said the rule required me to look for the ball. Since I am new to the group and the course was crowded and I didn't have my rule book with me (stupid), I did not argue. As luck would have it the ball was found and I ended up in the rough trying to hit over the trees. To make a long story short this cost me more than the stroke and distance would have. Now that I am back at the house with time to look at the rules, specifically rule 7.1 would seem to be the appropriate one. I don't see that this rule requires one to look for the ball. In fact rule 7.1a says "you MAY take reasonable actions to find and identify ball". I think implicit in the word "MAY" is that the action is optional. So who is right here, is one required to look for a potentially lost ball (I would think not for a lot of reasons)?

You are correct. A player with IACAS' skill could could very likely turn in a , what I would consider a "dream round " with about any set of irons you put in his hands. Further, because of his skill, he likely would have better scores with Players' Irons than Game Improvement Irons. But I appreciate those data he posted which confirm that skilled players probably should be playing with Players' clubs. I looked for data that was taken using an "Iron Byron" comparing the cavity back irons to players Irons. I am pretty sure those data exist, and just as sure it will be difficult to gain access to. So I didn't find such data in my half hour search. But, I'll keep trying because 5 mm is less than 0.2 inches and we 20 something handicap players call that part of the sweet spot.

I looked up the PGA rule on slow play as I had never read it. So I did read it. While I concur the rule could be simplified and more clear. But, having said that, the rule does seem petty inclusive of the situations one might expect. So I believe I fall on the side of the officials need to just decide to enforce the rule. You cost a few of the Pros a few grand with a stoke they were not expecting, I believe they will pay attention to pace of play. If anyone is interested, here is the URL for the Rule. https://www.pga.org/Document-Library/pat-rules-policies-guidelines-pace-of-play.pdf

It is really a mixed bag around here for green fees. This Winter some of the resort courses were near $300/round. City/County courses in the neighborhood of $50- $70 green fees. Some of the 9 hole courses I frequent here are in the range of $25 for green fees, about the same as last year. City/county courses are up 30%-40% over last year's Winter prices. Not sure about the Resort courses as I seldom play them because of the price. But looks like a 25% increase over last year's average. Weather is warming and prices are dropping, but I am leaving for my mountain home as are many ohthers.

Me too! I tend to watch more LPGA these days, they do, mostly, enforce the slow play rules.

I did see those and thought I had deleted my post. But must not have hit the correct buttons. OH well, just old I guess.

Hopefully this isn't repeat, I didn't read all 6 pages. But I believe it was Arnie that said "the more I practice, the luckier I get". I meant to add an other one. I don't know who first said this, but after striping stroke #3 down the middle after the first drive was OB, the man said "same golfer, more experience".

Since I am just beginning to play on a regular basis again I had set a goal of breaking 90 before Summer's end. I did that last Thursday and I did by sticking to the pre-shot routine the entire round. For the record I finished the round in 3:45, apparently if you stay on grass more the pre-shot routine won't cause slow play, in fact just the opposite I suspect. Next goal is to get my average Putts/hole less than 2. I have been plagued with 3 or more 3 putts a round. I once read an article by Arnie that said "if you want to improve you putting stats, improve your chipping/pitching game. I am going to work on that.

Played in a shotgun start the other day and birdied the first hole (#16, 425 y par 4). Hit a drive to 215 away and 3 wood to about 15 feet (yes it was a big 3 wood for me, but fairways are pretty firm out here these days). The putt was a bit of a slider maybe a cup and 1/2, but I made it and was on my way to breaking 90 for the first time quite some time. 🤠

I suppose this is a re-introduction. I have been battling a second time around Prostate cancer and not playing much. Both the treatments and medicine have kept me limited as to playing much or well. But am better, no detectible cancer, and back in the fold. Finally broke 90 again on a championship course, so feeling good about my progress to date. Thought I'd rejoin the conversations. So as the GOAT said, "hello world". Even if I don't write much, I will be reading with interest.

I guess I am not enough of a historian to know for sure who changed the goal if it was ever changed. But I did hear Tiger early on say, his goal was to exceed Jack's record for Major Tournament wins. So I'll repeat, Tiger set the metric, I didn't. But I am trying to argue who is the GOAT, there is another thread for that. I'm just trying to make the case Phil's record for tournament wins and Major Tournament wins would have likely been better had Tiger not been in field. I am trying to take anything away from Tiger in that argument, in fact just opposite. I am arguing that Tiger was so good he made in almost impossible for anyone else to win when he was in the field.

I did not set the metric of the most majors' wins as a criterion for GOAT. Tiger did that early in his career. I am not trying to sell Tiger short, in his time he was the without doubt the very best on the planet. In fact I'm just trying to make the case that if Tiger had not been in field, Phil's numbers for career wins and major wins would have better, your comment just enhances my case I believe.