[JohnV]

The best solution I've heard for slow play in match play was given by a prominent player earlier this year.  As he walked off the first tee, he turned to the other player and said, "If you play slow, I'm going to play so slow that we get put on the clock, because I can play fast and I know you can't."

[JohnV]

I'm just saying that if a player wants to play slow, I think that getting the group on the clock so that it has to speed up rather than rushing your own game to avoid going on the clock is the better solution.  Of course, this assumes you have officials who are willing to put a group on the clock.  It also doesn't work if the group pace of play is being used as you'll get penalized along with the slow player.

As I heard it, this tactic worked and the slow player played much faster than usual.  The threat was good enough in this case.

[John Moore II]

The best solution I've heard for slow play in match play was given by a prominent player earlier this year.  As he walked off the first tee, he turned to the other player and said, "If you play slow, I'm going to play so slow that we get put on the clock, because I can play fast and I know you can't."

Thats one of the best things I have heard recently, very good idea. I'd do it. Who said it?

[JohnV]

The best solution I've heard for slow play in match play was given by a prominent player earlier this year.  As he walked off the first tee, he turned to the other player and said, "If you play slow, I'm going to play so slow that we get put on the clock, because I can play fast and I know you can't."

Thats one of the best things I have heard recently, very good idea. I'd do it. Who said it?

Danny Green

[CHrisB]

The best solution I've heard for slow play in match play was given by a prominent player earlier this year.  As he walked off the first tee, he turned to the other player and said, "If you play slow, I'm going to play so slow that we get put on the clock, because I can play fast and I know you can't."

Thats one of the best things I have heard recently, very good idea. I'd do it. Who said it?

Danny Green

Sounds like something he'd say. Maybe that's the solution--make golf so combative that people play fast just so they have to spend less time on the course with the opponent.

[John Moore II]

It's really come to this, hasn't it?

I find this so saddening I'm at a loss for words that in a gentleman's game, the extent of slow play has gotten so sad that the most viable solution to it is to inconvenience everybody else behind you on the golf course a little - so you don't inconvenience them a lot.

Thank you, Dr. Bob (pre-shot seance), Jack (pacing distance to the inch) and Eldrick (cheater line). 

Thanks a bunch.   

I'd do this if I was paired with JB Holmes, or any of the other speed demons, Glen Day, etc. I'd get them put on the clock in a second and then I would just start eyeing distances and and such, like I normally do.

[Michael]

It's really come to this, hasn't it?

I find this so saddening I'm at a loss for words that in a gentleman's game, the extent of slow play has gotten so sad that the most viable solution to it is to inconvenience everybody else behind you on the golf course a little - so you don't inconvenience them a lot.

Thank you, Dr. Bob (pre-shot seance), Jack (pacing distance to the inch) and Eldrick (cheater line). 

Thanks a bunch.   

 So what is to be done?  Rangers at my local course are college kids/retired guys that couldn't care less about speeding up slow play..how do you stop a guy plumb bobing for a 8? or looking for a ball so off line, the zip code has changed... slow play has impaired (if not ruined) many of my rounds.

[Bill_McBride]

So let me get this straight - Sky Caddies are okay but the cheater line isn't!  LOL.

I deliberately tried to turn my golf ball - a Titleist DT Roll - so that all I could see was white.

Not easy, there is so much logo and cheater line and other stuff.  It may take longer to see just white than to line up logo or cheater line.

[Dan Herrmann]

Dear King of Golf (aka Shivas),
Which is worse, the cheater line, or Garcia's "Gopher hole" relief at The Barclay's?

(I like your new title!)

[Kalen Braley]

I'm surprised I haven't seen its own thread.....but when I was watching the gopher hole drop, I was thinking whats up with that?

[Tom Huckaby]

So let me get this straight - Sky Caddies are okay but the cheater line isn't!  LOL.

I deliberately tried to turn my golf ball - a Titleist DT Roll - so that all I could see was white.

Not easy, there is so much logo and cheater line and other stuff.  It may take longer to see just white than to line up logo or cheater line.

Sky Caddie is equally evil, Bill.  Cheater Lines erode horizontal judgment from the game.  Range Cheaters erode vertical judgment from the game. 
 
Bill, my suggestion for the all white look is White-Out from OfficeMax.

Uh oh... here we go again....

shivas (I refuse to call you King of Golf because if you are King I renounce my nationality):  here's a question you never answered from the other threads.  How do rangefinders and the like create any greater erosion of the pithily named "vertical judgment" than do sprinkler heads, yardage guides, caddies, and the countless other sources of distance information available in the game today?  I just don't see it, my friend.  You WILL blindly trust this electronic device, and WON'T trust all the other sources?  And just how do you think those other sources arrived at their numbers, in damn near all cases?  Using electronic devices.  Of all the arguments against these devices, I find that to be the weakest / most non-sensical.

As for white out on golf balls, those who want to use the ball to indicate a line would not be stopped by such.  They would then just use the dimples or the seam.  And that would be WORSE in terms of slow play, as they painstakingly tried to get such perfect....

TH

[Bill_McBride]

I figure my harmless little post is good for another 30 pages of this inanity. 

[Daryl David]

I'm surprised I haven't seen its own thread.....but when I was watching the gopher hole drop, I was thinking whats up with that?

The best part of that episode was the close up of VJ with his hand covering his face.  I would love to know what he was thinking.  It took a lot of control for him to not go over there and try to stop that nonsense.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom, Principle # ___ of Tuft's Book is "Play the Golf Course As You Find It" (or so I understand, since I've never seen the book...I'm not a member of Skull & Bones or a Free Mason either).

All of the things you mention are part of the golf course.  Caddies have a long history and are part of the spirit of the game.

Range Cheaters are NOT part of the course as you find it, therefore they do NOT fit within Tufts' principles.  As such, since Tufts' Principles are all that REALLY matter in the game (as you know, the actual language of the rulebook is clearly irrelevent), if it doesn't fit in the Tufts' Principles, then it's evil and demonic and should be illegal.

Reading a sprinklerhead is playing the course as you find it and using what's already there.  Using a Range Cheater is bring an artificial device to assist you in play and should be banned. 

That's how it's different. 

(Oh, before you mention yardage guides - I hate them, but all they really are is maps to all the already-existing public information that's already out there or discernable from the information that's already out there).  I don't like 'em, but the cart's out of the horse on that one. 

Sigh.  For one thing, this has nothing to do with "erosion of judgment" - you just created a NEW complaint - use only that information already available on the course.  You skillfully avoided my question about erosion of judgment - and wisely so, as you know it's foolish.

Secondly, your new argument is also totally senseless.  Marked sprinkler heads were around with the shepherds hitting rocks, eh?   And yardage guides are OK because the cart's out of the barn?  Puh-leeze... good lord man there is so much distance information available, it's ALL out of the barn!  Either remove it all, or allow that which makes the game go faster.  And I remain convinced that these devices do speed play.

In any event, I now see you will go to ANY lengths to further your arguments, as nonsensical as they may be.  I actually think you don't really believe this shit but are having some fun and/or testing your legal skills arguing against what you believe.  That is kinda cool.  I hope I'm right about that.

But either way... you were way better when you said there should just plain be no electronic devices in golf.  I can respect that viewpoint.  Erosion of vertical judgment?  That's just plain illogical.   Use only what's on the course?  Also makes no sense as such has been eroding since the first shephered did something other than eyeball his shot.



As for the cheater line, again I respect your passion for the white whale.  I just fear for your sanity, that's all.  On top of that, Goodale nailed this on page one of this thread in his first reply to you.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

As did I in my first to him.

Oh would that it had ended there, for all of our sakes... but particularly yours.
 

[Ken Moum]

By the way, will somebody please send me or post the section of Tuft's book that deals with advise and artificial assistance?

I can guarantee there isn't a single thought in that book that argues in favor of the Cheater Line.  To the contrary, sight unseen, I'll bet it's just LOADED with statements that logically argue against the Cheater Line.

I just got my new copy, and can't say it totally supports your argument.  It does mention judgement, however.

Ch. 14, You Are on Your Own, does say:

Generally speaking, information which is readily available to the player is not considered advice. For example, he may ask about the Rules [Def.2]; or he may have the line of play indicated, but no mark ma be placed on the line [Rule 9-2] nor may he be informed as to the distance of his shot since either action would provide him with assistance in the execution of his stroke or the selection of his club. However, on the putting green, since judgement o the slope if the green is a factor in any estimation of the line for the putt, assistance to the player as to the line comes under the heading of assistance. [Rule 35-1e]

[JESII]

So here's the question:  why does anywhere mean anywhere - pretty much everywhere in the Rules of Golf --  except when it comes to Rule 8-2(b)?

because the cheater-line is viewed as part of the ball because if it were not, the ball would not be conforming...and if it were not conforming the USGA would have a tough time enforcing the "place a mark on your ball for identification" rule...and so, the ball is placed, not the mark.

[Phil McDade]

Simple courtesy is far different than marking golf balls, or using range finders, etc.

-I await my inviation to Lawsonia.

I believe the good Baptists who run Lawsonia have banned range-finders, on the belief that we should all simply use our God-given abilities -- and only those -- for determining how far to play a golf shot.

[Tom Huckaby]

Simple courtesy is far different than marking golf balls, or using range finders, etc.

-I await my inviation to Lawsonia.

I believe the good Baptists who run Lawsonia have banned range-finders, on the belief that we should all simply use our God-given abilities -- and only those -- for determining how far to play a golf shot.

Interesting stance.  Did they also remove all markings, ie sprinkler heads, 150 markers, etc.?  Hard to see how those are part of our god-given abilities...

Hey, I am all for this stance.  I would love it if all distance markings were removed.  I just can't see the logic of leaving some and prohibiting others.

TH

[Phil McDade]

Simple courtesy is far different than marking golf balls, or using range finders, etc.

-I await my inviation to Lawsonia.

I believe the good Baptists who run Lawsonia have banned range-finders, on the belief that we should all simply use our God-given abilities -- and only those -- for determining how far to play a golf shot.

Interesting stance.  Did they also remove all markings, ie sprinkler heads, 150 markers, etc.?  Hard to see how those are part of our god-given abilities...

Hey, I am all for this stance.  I would love it if all distance markings were removed.  I just can't see the logic of leaving some and prohibiting others.

TH

Tom:

Pardon me; I misspoke. I should have wrote: "The good Baptists who run Lawsonia should ban...."

Sorry that my original tone didn't make it through the first post (and I immediately thought of the sprinkler head measurements found throughout the course; I defer expertise on Tufts book to post #1405

[CHrisB]

I'd like to hear Sean Arble, Chris B and Jim K speak to the "anywhere" aspect of Rule in light of Sergio's drop. 

Huh?  The two rules have nothing to do with each other.

True.  But there's an approach issue here...


OK, here's the thinking:  a lot of people were miffed that Sergio got that drop, their reasoning being that you shouldn't get the drop when you're up next to the tree like that.

But the rules don't work like that, do they?  If a rule applies anywhere, it applies anywhere!  Discuss.  Here, Rule 25 doesn't even say "anywhere".  It's an assumed anywhere: the Rule applies anywhere, except to the extent there's some limitation on anywhere. 

So here's the question:  why does anywhere mean anywhere - pretty much everywhere in the Rules of Golf --  except when it comes to Rule 8-2(b)?

It would be interesting to know how many other times the word "anywhere" appears in the rules...

[CHrisB]

I'd like to hear Sean Arble, Chris B and Jim K speak to the "anywhere" aspect of Rule in light of Sergio's drop. 

Huh?  The two rules have nothing to do with each other.

True.  But there's an approach issue here...


OK, here's the thinking:  a lot of people were miffed that Sergio got that drop, their reasoning being that you shouldn't get the drop when you're up next to the tree like that.

But the rules don't work like that, do they?  If a rule applies anywhere, it applies anywhere!  Discuss.  Here, Rule 25 doesn't even say "anywhere".  It's an assumed anywhere: the Rule applies anywhere, except to the extent there's some limitation on anywhere. 

So here's the question:  why does anywhere mean anywhere - pretty much everywhere in the Rules of Golf --  except when it comes to Rule 8-2(b)?

Dave S,
This is why a long time ago I brought up all that stuff about what being "placed" means.

If anywhere really means anywhere, then strictly by the language of Decision 20-3a/2, then USGA doesn't consider a trademark (and by extension a hand-drawn line) a "mark placed to indicate a line for putting". Which means that it either isn't a "mark" or it isn't "placed" (but it has to be a "mark", right?).

I understand a placeable object to be a tangible object capable of existing on its own. Can a pen mark or a trademark exist on its own?

Also, if you place something on something else, then the two things have to be separate from each other. The USGA must not consider a pen mark or a trademark as separate from the ball (any more than the paint or the cover). They must consider it part of the ball.

And I'm inclined to agree with JES--if you were to play with a ball that is deemed (at all times) to have something separate from the ball on it, then you'd have to run into some problem with the rules or with the ball being conforming.

[CHrisB]

Dave S,
Sorry I messed up that post you quoted.

See my post #1419 above.

[CHrisB]

Oh, and by the way, if "placed" doesn't mean "placed" with respect to the mark, what precisely IS it referring to?

The rule has nothing to do with the BALL being placed, so to argue that the ball is being placed is nonsensical.

Actually, under the rules of golf, the ball is being REplaced.

So if the ball is being REplaced, please explain the definition of "placed" that makes replacement of the ball and placement of the mark mutually exclusive.  Because that's what you're arguing.  And if you're going to argue it, you've got to have support for it, don't you think? 

Chris, there is none.  You've got a theory that results in an apple being an orange, or better yet, a toilet seat.  It just doesn't make any sense....

I'm not arguing that the ball is being placed. Maybe JES was but not me. Yes, the ball is being replaced.

I'm just saying that if you go by the strict language of the decision, then the USGA must not consider a pen mark on the ball to be a "mark placed". It has to be a "mark", doesn't it? (How can a pen mark not be a mark?)

So what's left? Maybe they don't consider it "placed". They probably consider "placed marks" to be tangible things--things you set down on the line like a coin, or behind the hole like the pin, or behind the ball like a tee, or in front of your feet or on your shoes or in your belt loops like a club. I'll bet if you put a piece of string on top of the ball that served the same purpose as the cheater line it would be a "placed mark" and therefore a violation.

So if it's not "placed", not "placeable", then the USGA must not see the pen mark or trademark as something existing independently of the ball; therefore they must be part of the ball.

And since, you're right, it doesn't make sense for the ball with a line on it to be considered a "placed mark" (the mark is a part of the ball; a mark on the ball doesn't make the whole ball a mark), then they don't consider someone using a cheater line to be using a "mark placed to indicate a line for putting".

I don't know if I agree with all this or not (that's one of the questions I've asked of the USGA), but if you go strictly by the language of the rules then that's my best guess for now.

[CHrisB]

Dave S,
By any definition ever known to mankind?

How about this definition--"touchable; able to be touched or felt; perceptible by the sense of touch; palpable"? Could you hold a ball with a cheater line on it and tell me where the cheater line is with your eyes closed?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()