Davis Love's decision on #18!

[TEPaul]

"That's all well and good and I don't mean to infer the contrary, just that I get a little tired of hearing about gentlemen who don't win.  It's like the football coach who molds fine young men who can't win football games.  I want both."

That's just precisely the kind of remark I find so very fascinating on this website and so very maddening too. And it's also why I really do feel so many of you don't understand in the slightest top flight golf or top flight golfers. Davis Love is clearly a gentleman and what a sportsman he obviously is was very well evidenced by not just what he did yesterday but the specific reasons why. But how anyone anywhere could possibly say about Davis Love that he can't or doesn't win is simply beyond me! The way some on here act and speak about something like 10 to 30 world caliber golfers, like the way a guy like redanman speaks about most of them, one would think it was possible for the world to have about 20-30 World #1 golfers---and all at the same time! Maybe someone should tell a guy like redanman that's just not possible!  

[Paul Richards]

Rick

You hit the nail on the head there.

[TEPaul]

JohnV:

You're post #22 is precisely what I've been saying on here---precisely. For some reason most on here seem to think that in some way Davis Love yesterday simply didn't get into a situation of basically attempting to try and see if he could get away with violating the letter of the Rules of Golf by getting some rules official to grant him relief in what may have been a questionable ruling. And obviously because some on here are sort of confused by something like that and what Love did do they don't really understand why the man should be praised as he has been for what he did.

Perhaps most on here don't really know that a good amount of golfers and even a good amount of tour pro golfers do understand that if a rules official grants them a decision in their favor that may be a very poor decision even violating the letter of the Rules of Golf the player has every opportunity and right to play by that decision free of any penalty under the rules. I think it's pretty clear to see, and for years, that the only real allegiance some even very good players feel towards the Rules of Golf is that if they don't ask they'll never get. Their tendency is to ask for anything, even knowing full well it may be against the Rules, and knowing if the rules official makes a mistake on the rules they (the player) is basically off the hook!

Obviously Davis Love doesn't feel that way or do things like that.

[Paul_Turner]

Davis really shouldn't be praised for any of this.  

I remember David Frost trying to claim under similar circumstances at the 2nd at Carnoustie in '99 (final round).  He claimed his downhill stance in the thick rough had to be widened, which meant his back foot was on a shell path...relief.  It was ridiculous.  

[A.G._Crockett]

When I play golf on the computer, I ALWAYS play as DL III.  Before, it was because he is an old Tarheel, as am I.  Now, I have a much better reason!

Class act by a class guy.  He has had a terrific career that some paint as underachieving due to a lack of major championships.  There are higher things to aspire to, and Love hit the mark yesterday.

I think I'd rather my son grow up with that set of values that ones that might yield more wins.

[TEPaul]

"I remember David Frost trying to claim under similar circumstances at the 2nd at Carnoustie in '99.  He claimed his downhill stance in the thick rough had to be widened, which meant his back foot was on a shell path...relief.  It was ridiculous."

Paul:

Did the rules officials grant David Frost relief?  

[Paul_Turner]

No

[JSlonis]

Rick,

Exactly!!


By the way, good first call on the disastrous pairing of Tiger & Phil.  I was hoping against hope you'd be wrong on that one, but...they got smoked like the rest of the US squad.

[TEPaul]

Paul Turner said;

"No"

Paul:

And in that lies the real difference here. What Frost was trying to do is what a lot of tour pros seem to do which is use rules officials decisions to bend both the spirit but also the letter of the Rules of Golf. What Love did yesterday isn't even remotely the same thing. I doubt there's a competent rules official anywhere in the world who would've even thought to question Love yesterday, much less deny him relief if he asked for relief under Rule 24-2 and that's why what Love did certainly should be praised. Try to think of another example in your memory like that one yesterday. I sure can't think of one!

[Paul_Turner]

Tom

Of course it's similar...just depends on what the official thought was a "reasonable" stance.

[Rick Shefchik]

Jamie -- Thanks. In the spirit of Davis Love III, I hope to be as quick to call one on myself when I'm wrong, too.

[Paul Richards]

>good first call on the disastrous pairing of Tiger & Phil.  I was hoping against hope you'd be wrong on that one, but...they got smoked like the rest of the US squad.



The 'superstars' don't make good partners - for whatever reason - is it ego?  Tiger and Chris Riley - good.  Tiger and Phil - bad.

Why does this seem to be the case with the Americans?

[Rick Shefchik]

Paul -- My theory is it's not just the Americans. I mentioned in another thread the Europe never paired Faldo and Seve when they were the possibly the two best players in the world. You might surmise it was because Europe's team was thinner then, and the Euro captains needed to spread their talent as thin as possible. But I think they recognized that a dominant player functions better with a young, eager and talented partner who wants to be led and nurtured by the star -- which is what happened with Olazabal, Monty and now Harrington.

The Euros figured this out two decades ago. We still don't seem to understand it.

[THuckaby2]

>good first call on the disastrous pairing of Tiger & Phil.  I was hoping against hope you'd be wrong on that one, but...they got smoked like the rest of the US squad.



The 'superstars' don't make good partners - for whatever reason - is it ego?  Tiger and Chris Riley - good.  Tiger and Phil - bad.

Why does this seem to be the case with the Americans?

The guys at the VERY top are so used to being such, it's hard for them to treat any pairing as a partnership of equals.  When Tiger pairs with Riley, sure it's easy and great, because he's known Riley and kicked his ass forever.  Thus it's clear who the captain is and who the support guy is, the roles are known, everyone's happy - even Riley.

When Tiger pairs with Mickelson, that's a pairing of two rivals and Phil sure as hell isn't gonna give in and take the support role.  Both of them know this, both of them are so used to being on top - with the other as a main threat to such - it's just very tough to put all that aside for the greater glory of the good ole USofA.

But I also think this is not an American thing as much as it is a superstar thing.  When Faldo was on top (or very close thereto), Woosnam was one of his main rivals.  Would the two of them made a good pairing?  I'm doubting it.  Of course I could be very wrong - maybe they did have good success.  But if they did, I'd say it's because they're so damn good and they overcome the "bad" pairing.  Nicklaus and Palmer would be an example of this... They did partner from time to time and did quite well.  But they were also friends outside of golf, thrown together for so many things (like the Big 3 shows) so they kinda had to be friends.

None of the top US players, or other players really, have what Jack and Arnie had back then.  Would Els and Vijay be good partners?  I really doubt it.

I think in the case of the real greats, you have to have the pecking order clear.  Amongst all others, this isn't an issue.  But the ones at the top will only succeed as partners if they are otherwise friends - like Jack and Arnie - or if they are just so good they succeed despite all this.  I think Sutton knew this and just figured on the latter.  Had Mickelson played half-way decently, Sutton could have been proven right.

TH

[TEPaul]

"Tom
Of course it's similar...just depends on what the official thought was a "reasonable" stance."

But Paul, can't you see that's precisely the way almost everyone seems to think about this kind of thing, apparently even you. Anyone can say this type of thing is similar because it just depends on what the rules official thinks a "reasonable stance" is!

That's precisely why that Love thing yesterday was so different (ie so dissimilar). That situation with Love was that one rare example where obviously relief could've and would've been granted but Love for the reasons that are so admirable (that we all found out about later) didn't even BOTHER TO ASK what the rules official might have thought was a "reasonable stance"!

I don't know whether you happened to notice but when all that was going on there was a rules official standing directly behind Love and his caddie. I can almost guarantee you that rules official was the most suprised guy in the world when Love ended up never even bothering to talk to him! At least I sure never saw Love talk to him. If he ever did it may have been to tell that rules official he wasn't even going to think about 24-2 relief!

I happen to think there's a enormous distinction here and it's sort of sad that even after it happened most don't even seem to understand what it was really all about.

Love deserves a lot of admiration, in my book, which is pretty old!  

[THuckaby2]

TEP:

I didn't see the event in question and in fact this is the first I am hearing of it - I gave up on the US and was playing the game yesterday and was too disgusted to watch much of the news nor read the print recaps.

So do clarify one thing for me, will you:  had Love taken the drop, how much better off would he have been?

I'm ready to give all the credit in the world to this player who I actually despise more than just about any (sorry AGC, we all have our unique likes and dislikes and the fact he's a TarHeel to me is perhaps his one saving grace).  

I just want to be certain before I do give him credit.  Because if he could have taken truly beneficial relief without any stretch of the rules as determined by a rules official, and chose not to because in his mind he would have been stretching the intent, well... that is a thing to be admired for sure.

But if the relief wouldn't have helped him much, well... this becomes much ado about nothing.

I'm sure that's not the case.  But my bias against DLIII is such that I want all the facts.  As a Dodger fan, this is like me giving Barry Bonds credit for his gifts to humanity.
 
TH

[Rick Shefchik]

Tom H. -- He was less than five feet off the fairway. Given a clublength of relief, I think he could have easily dropped onto the first cut of rough, which would have made all the difference in the world. It literally would have changed the match.

[Mike Benham]

So do clarify one thing for me, will you:  had Love taken the drop, how much better off would he have been?

The nearest point of relief was closer to the fairway so there is a good chance that with 1-club length, he would have taken the drop in the fairway or at least in the first cut of rough ...

Edit:  Whoops - sorry Rick for the cybre-passing post

[THuckaby2]

Rick/Mike:

God dammit.  I feared that was the case.

OK, I'm now with Tom Paul.  This was a really cool thing to do, not to mention honest and showing integrity and proper respect for the spirit behind the rules.

I just wish it was ANYONE besides DLIII who had done this.

Some times the truth hurts.  But DLIII has certainly risen in my esteem.  That's OK - it's a long way to get out of the gutter completely.

 

[Jeff Goldman]

Don't be too quick to call Frost a cheater.  I looked at my tape of the situation at Carnoustie and Frost ended up hitting exactly the shot he claimed he would hit, with his foot on the path.  It appeared that that was in fact his only shot, but there was no way he was going  to get relief because the officials screwed up the Van de Velde request from relief the day before and were not going to take any chances.

Jeff Goldman  

[George Pazin]

Jeff -

I don't have my tape anymore, but my recollection of the incident is that he purposely hit the shot like that out of spite towards the official. I could certainly be wrong on that recollection, though.

[Brent Hutto]

I happen to think there's a enormous distinction here and it's sort of sad that even after it happened most don't even seem to understand what it was really all about.

I share your amazement that it's even a subject for second guessing. Apparently Davis Love looks at an obstruction the way you and I do and in keeping with the spirit of the Rule. Set up to play the shot and if the obstruction obstructs, take relief (cue Johnny Cochran impersonation "If the obstruction does not obstruct then the relief is not usufruct") and if not it's a non-issue.

The typical player you see on TV takes any obstruction he can find as a potential advantage to be gained. It always pains me to see a player walk up to a ball they just hit into a terrible lie and immediately start casting their eyes about for any nearby object that they can rules-lawyer into a free drop. Big-time golf goes so far afield from "play it as it lies" that it can get disgusting at times. All IMHO of course.

[Rick Shefchik]

Huck -- What was really cool about the scene was the look on Davis' face -- one you might well have enjoyed. He was dead, and he knew it, and he had that look we all have when we've put ourselves in jail at the worst possible time, off a shot that was well-struck and could have turned out much better, and there really is no way out but to pitch back to the fairway.

If ever there was an occasion where a player would have wanted to fudge on that extra half-inch that would put his heel in contact with the sprinkler head, this was the one. But as deflated as Love looked, he didn't consider it. He took his medicine like man. Like a champ, in my eyes.

Man, I wish he'd made that putt. But sometimes the only reward is simply being able to live with yourself.

[TEPaul]

"So do clarify one thing for me, will you:  had Love taken the drop, how much better off would he have been?"

TomH:

How much better would Love have been if he'd bothered to ask for 24-2 relief and took the appropriate drop? Oh, about 1000% better off. The second cut was close enough to have very definitely gotten his relief drop with a driver length there from which Love probably would've hit that high fade. Davis Love most certainly does know how to hit that high fade!

[TEPaul]

TomH:

You despise Davis Love? In that case you need to see Dr Katz quick or get somebody nearby to screw your head on right. If you actually despise Davis Love you most certainly have a very serious personality disorder---probably something like this weirdo character around here who goes by the name of redanman. Did you say you work in a Clorox factory? Try putting on your protective mask more frequently!