Fourputt

Just the numbers. Never done it any other way and never seen anyone else do it any other way. Why complicate it? I took 6 strokes, I write down a 6 - it doesn't get any simpler.

I realize that, but I've been in a situation where the reference point for a drop was questioned by someone who didn't have a good angle to see the line of flight and thus the drop was not only questioned, but taken to the committee and had to be reviewed out on the course where the incident took place. This is why I like to clarify the point when it comes up.

Actually, line of flight does come into play in determining the point of reference for deciding where to drop when a ball is lost or unplayable in a water hazard. The point on the line of flight where the ball last crossed the margin of the hazard is your reference point. Once that point is established, line of flight no longer figures into the process.

Back in 1990 I had a 2 iron as part of a set of McGregor RPM irons. I used it fairly well it off the tee on some holes, and for punching out from under trees on occasion, but that's about it. I've never been very proficient with the longer irons hitting from a tight lie. Usually preferred a 4W or 5W for that. Now at my advanced seniority, my longest iron is a 6. I carry a 3, 5, and 7 wood and 2 hybrids, 22° and 25°.

I don't care much for your tone in this, Erik. It's demeaning. I was relating what I EXPERIENCED as a referee for my state golf association in state level tournaments (and it was essentially the same policy as when I marshaled for the Tour). We didn't touch player's ball, period. From the OP description, there was no reason in this case for the referee to do so. I stand by my opinion that he should have let the player do the ball handling. I've watched untold numbers of drops on TV and I've never seen the referee pick up a ball in a case where the ball wasn't well out of the allowed drop area.

First of all, I think that the referee was wrong in touching a moving ball. From the description, the ball was probably closer to the hole than the rules allowed, and appeared to the referee to be still moving in that direction, but that doesn't excuse him for touching a ball in play. Had it been me, I would not have touched the ball period. When it came to rest in a spot not allowed under the rules, I'd have instructed the player to place it where it first touched the course on the second drop. When I was refereeing for the Colorado Golf Association, we were very specifically instructed to only interact with the players if asked a question, or if we actually observed a breach. When I worked as marshal at a PGA Tour event, we were instructed to be as invisible as possible to the players, only interacting when they initiated the contact.

For me, if a wager is involved, so are the Rules of Golf. That basically ends any discussion like this. We play by the rules or you play your game, I'll play by the rules, and there will be no wagering.

To add to this, I can't recall anyone being Club Champion with higher than a 5 handicap. This being a public, sort of municipal (recreation district) course, we have a lot more guys in the 10-15 handicap range than in in single digits.

My home course tried that and tracked round times for a full season (part of the starter's job there is to track round times anyway so it wasn't anything different than we ever did). It had no discernible effect on pace of play. Unless the hole has an unusually long route from tee to green, nothing is gained, and generally players just end up waiting elsewhere. For most groups I've played in, waiting at the green for the group on the tee to hit is as long a delay as waiting on the tee for the group to putt out. All you do is move the wait to another point on the course, often it's the next tee.

Assuming all else is equal, then breaking them up will be faster for each group, but from the first player teeing off to the final player to hole a putt the time will be about the same as for a fivesome. The difference is that the 2 groups play at a faster pace, so following players aren't held up. Most courses I play at won't even let a group of 5 out on the course.

I started enjoying golf more when I quit taking it too seriously. That doesn't mean that I quit caring or playing under the rules of golf, but I just accepted that at a 10 handicap, I was about as good as I was going to be, and I decided to be happy with that. That let me shoot a few rounds each year in the mid 70's to soothe my ego, and I kept more than 90% of my scores at 85 or less. For me, that was probably the best I have ever performed at any quasi-athletic endeavor, so it was not too difficult for me to find satisfaction in my game. Now at age 71, I'm happy to still be playing and hitting enough acceptable shots to keep bringing me out to play tournaments in the same men's club I've played in since 1989. When I joined this public course tournament club, my handicap was exactly where it is right now, but I improved rapidly during the last half of that first season, stalled at around 10 the next year and stayed there for 24 years. Weekend after next is the 54 hole club championship, and my entry is submitted. I'll probably be in 4th flight, with a course handicap of 19, a ways off from where I was at my prime, but I'll be playing with guys who are pleasant playing companions, so I'll be looking forward to a fun 3 days (Fri-Sat-Sun).

I always had that option for the Club Championship, and at one time it might have made some sense. I won 2nd flight a couple of years, and once with scores low enough to be in the top 5 in 1st flight (played scratch, like yours), but I never declared out of my normal flight. Like you, I just didn't feel that I was consistent enough to truly compete with guys sporting anywhere from scratch to a 4 or 5 handicap. I never regretted playing against the other guys at my skill level. I know that I had more fun playing in 2nd flight than I would have by putting unnecessary pressure on my game in Championship flight. In the end that's why I play, to have fun, so I've no regrets, and now those options are no longer even under consideration. So my advice would be to choose what you think you will enjoy the most.

I was ready to comment here too. Okay I guess if you just play for fun, but for competition or for wagering, not allowed.

It still isn't a match unless it's match play. That is one of the most common misuses of a term in golf. (The other is using "opponent" in place of fellow competitor in stroke play.) It may be a competition, but if you're playing stroke play, it isn't a match. As for DQ, I'd say yes, the form of play really doesn't matter. Such an egregious act on the part of a fellow competitor or opponent is deserving of only one result. Even though you only caught him one time, there is no way of knowing how many times he did something similar without being caught. Any committee that didn't DQ a player for such acts would be remiss in it's duty.

If it's stroke play then it isn't a match, even if you and your playing companion are the only ones competing. A match is by definition, match play. When discussing the Rules of Golf, knowing and using correct terminology is important for communicating your point. First of all the rules aren't really written to address the sort of cheating that you imagine in your hypothetical. If A doesn't see the action and plays from the spot to which B moved it, it's a major problem. If I caught B doing anything like that in a competition, we would be heading straight to the committee, and he probably gets disqualified for such deliberate, calculated cheating. A ball at rest which is subsequently moved can be replaced without changing the way the hole plays out. Deflecting or stopping a ball in motion creates a situation where you really can't determine where the ball might have come to rest, or how things may have played out had the movement of the ball not been altered. That makes the second case more serious and deserving of the additional penalty.

Seems to me that it's clearly a cry for attention. I have 2 aces, one in August 1989 and the 2nd in May, 1990. In the 28 years since that 2nd one, nothing, and I played to a 10-11 handicap for 24 of those 28 years. I had a 16 handicap for the first one, 12 handicap for the second. The day before I made the first ace I shot what is still my personal best round of 73. That weekend was my golfing epiphany - prior to that weekend I was pretty much a bogie golfer, and after it I was nearly a single digit (at one point about 2 years later I did briefly get my index down to 9.6). I've never been able to adequately explain even to myself why I seemed to suddenly understand the game without benefit of lessons or exceptional amounts of practice. Oh, by the way, I saw both balls go into the hole, and I reacted appropriately. The first had unimpeachable witnesses, as it occurred on the 71st hole of the Club Championship, with the other 3 guys in my group, plus the 4 in the following group (there was a slight back up on the tee of the par 3). The 2nd ace I had witnesses, but it was a casual round where I was paired with a twosome of strangers whom I'd never seen before, nor did I ever play with them again.

I don't know your situation as far as general physical condition, but your layoff was at the age where distance starts to drop off dramatically for most people even when they play fairly regularly. I only had a 2 year period when I just played a few rounds during a week each year when back to the US on vacation after I was in my mid 60's - didn't have quite a full year between golf outings, and it still showed up in my length in a big way. Now at 71, I'm probably about where you say you are. It's frustrating, but it's just part of being an aging golfer.

To follow the procedure you would first need to drop on the cart path. If there is interference from the obstruction where the ball came to rest, you would then follow the procedure for taking relief from that.

It's the skill of reading a green, regardless of whether they both work it out together. The books are created using tools which are not allowed under the rules. They also then record information which is not considered as public knowledge"under the rules", such as the amount of slope as measured with a protractor and level, etc. While this still requires the player to strike the putt, it still takes something away from the necessity of reading the green as he plays the hole. That distinction may be too subtle for Kuchar's caddie to grasp, but I can see it. When I see player after player facing 40+ foot snaky putts and regularly getting them within a couple of inches, it raises the suspicion that they have more information to go on than just what they are reading at the time. It's not the short putts that probably concern the ruling bodies, but more likely those long lag putts which they feel have become too easy. I don't have any info, but I wonder if the stats on 3-putts have changed over the last 10-15 years enough to cause this concern.

I don't think that the caddie spending, as the article says, "hours" making up detailed green reading charts reflects on the skill of the player, and that is what should be measured in a competition. This is just a caddie blowing a fuse, likely because he has put in those hours and now feels he has wasted all that time. I can understand some frustration, but he has taken it farther than it needs to be. Lodge your objection and move on. I'm 100% in favor of this rule.

Last tournament I played in I had a big glob of mud on my ball a couple of times after tee shots. I just played it per the rules. It happens. When the conditions warrant it, the "preferred lies" local rule should be used. It should only be used when the overall course conditions are such that the lie or muddy conditions would adversely affect play in a general sense. For an occasional case of mud on the ball, you just play it and take what comes. That's golf. Occasional mud and dirt are not abnormal conditions on a golf course, and nowhere is it stated that you are entitled to pristine conditions and a spotless ball except on the green.

Out of bounds is out of bounds - doesn't matter if it's an inch or 100 yards. In either case, the ball has left the playing field and is necessarily subject to the same penalty. It goes to equity, treating similar situation in the same way. When I hit a ball that is near the boundary line but it is uncertain if it's in or out, I'll play a provisional ball.

That quote is attributed to at least 3 different past pros. I've heard it most often as a quote by Hogan. Never heard Armour credited with it before. I'm thinking that it's probably one of those stories that's more myth than fact.

This is really a mistake to to get too stuck on stroke play. I've always played a bit of match play when playing casual golf as well as playing in men's club matches. It keeps you mentally flexible. And it's fun. And you can still keep a legitimate stroke score for handicap if you so choose, even if some rules are contradictory between the two forms of play. My brother and I often play matches when we get together a couple of times a year. I used to give him strokes, now he has to give me about 6 strokes.

I'd love to get that guy in a match. I'd be guaranteed at least one hole won, because if he tries to cheat I'm going to call him on it, and if he disputes it, I'll make my claim before the next tee as the rules require. He sure won't get in my head that way - I'm more likely to bug him when I quote the rule to him. And I'll keep bugging him with rules until he decides to play golf and leave the head games in the clubhouse.