[Brent Hutto]

The article pretty clearly quoted Ouimet as stating that he believed golfers were to obsessed with hitting each club farther. That is the meaning of "distance" in the context quoted. So now you're reduced to sophomoric word games when Fortson goes out and finds multiple historical sources to support his belief that knowing the distance from one point to another on the golf course has been part of the game for at least 100 years. Not your best work, Shiv.

[Jeff Fortson]

This is dated 1916 and references Ray, Vardon, Ouimet, and Hagen and how the Brits felt Americans were too consumed with hitting their clubs far.  Then talk about knowing specific distances their clubs went.  This suggests that they knew the length between two different spots on a course.  Otherwise, how would they measure this?...

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9A0DEFDF1E3FE233A2575BC0A9619C946796D6CF


Jeff F.

And this is somehow evidence that the spirit of the game is consumed with distance?  LOL! 

Has anybody else actually read this article?

What this article says is 100% the opposite:  that back then, the game was a game of feel and judgment and that the best players were NOT all-consumed with distance. 

What else ya' got to make our case for us, Jeff? 

Shivas,

Go back and re-read it.  Nowhere does it talk about the game being a game of feel and judgement.  It talks about how Americans "under-clubbed" and "over-swung".  It talks about how the English used 3/4 swings and reserved their energy going for accuracy while the Americans lashed at the ball.  It talks about how some were bragging about hitting their mashies over 200 yards.  Where does this article contradict my stance on measuring distance?   

For a lawyer that was a poor read my friend.


Jeff F.

[Jeff Fortson]

Brent, you're 100% wrong on this.

There's one reference to American players that brag of 200-yard approach shots.


The point of the article was that this is a shitty thing to be focused on and that the best players have a variety of shots and swings and play by feel and judgment.

Even back then, any bozo could go out into a field and hit a few mashies and pace them off to learn how far he hits a mashie.  In fact, any bozo could (and I'm certain did) hit a mashie into a green, have it come up woefully short and then pace it off to find out how far he hit the thing. 

This has nothing to do with the need to know distances to the hole BEFORE this shot is hit.  This article is about how all-consumed early American players were with smashing the ball as far as possible with each club, and how foolhardy that is because the game is a game of feel and judgment and control. 

Please, Jeff, keep 'em comin'... they're fabulous evidence of the true spirit of the game not depending on knowledge of yardage prior to the shot.

 

You are trying to get under my skin now.  Shall I type the whole article out?  The article has a reference to knowing how far one's shot went.  This is evidence that supports the idea that measurements were part of the game in the early 20th century.  How would one know it went 200 yards if it were not measured? 

It makes no comment on feel at all.  It simply states that Americans under-clubbed and swung too hard.  I have never claimed that feel was not a part of the game.  It's important in fast swings too you know.  All I am using this article for is to show Melvyn that people were measuring distances in this era.  That's it.  You need to carefully look at our prior posts and understand the context of our debate.  Show me once where the article says that knowing measurements is contrary to the spirit of the game. 


Jeff F.

[Jeff Fortson]

Shivas,

Look at the other examples I give.  They all support my point.  Is the distance of a hole not a distance of two locations on a course (the tee and the hole)?  Does knowing how far you hit a club not play into the logic that one would know how far certain hazards were from other spots so as to avoid them? 

I have to believe that you are trying to goad me into another 50 posts on this topic and I won't if do it if you resort to this kind of interpretive take on clear evidence that supports my position.  Show me one example stating that the measuring of two distances on a course is contrary to the spirit of the game.


Jeff F.

[Jeff Fortson]

Let me write the meat of the article out...

Francis Ouimet, former national open and national amateur champion, points out from his personal experiences here and abroad many differences in golf as it is played here and across the ocean, and he gives the aspiring amateur advice as to how such differences may be eradicated.  The conquerer of Ray and Vardon believes that one of the main faults of American golfers is an inordinate desire for distance, with the additional error of trying to get this with a club not fitted for the work.  The average American golfer is too ready to boast of a 200-yard approach with a mashie instead of getting the same distance with a spared brassie.

If "underclubbing" is one of the chief faults in this country, overswinging is another.  Ouimet noticed that one of the rarest sights on the foreign links was to see a golfer play a full swing with an iron.  The short, firm, three-quarter swing gives more control, and the selection of the proper club gives all the distance that is required.  Accuracy with the irons, knowledge of how to play in wind, varieties in strokes for all sorts of conditions, and an appearance of "playing under wraps", with plenty of reserve power, are some of the distinguishing characteristics of the low handicap man in England as opposed to the American low mark player.  Many golfers in this country may get the same scores as those turned in by the experts on Musselburgh, St. Andrews, Blackheath, and the other famous courses abroad, but the end is reached by "main strength and awkwardness" in contrast to the ease and skill of the foreign golfers.


Now, Shivas, where does it insinuate that knowing distances is against the spirit of the game?  It does talk about the Englishman using a more controlled swing and using more "skill and ease" but why does that turn into that meaning that those players didn't know distances between two points on a course.  "A short, firm, three-quarter swing" doesn't sound like it has more feel than a long one.  How can you judge feel with that?  Who cares about feel as it relates to this topic?!  Just because I know a distance between two spots doesn't mean I use ZERO feel to execute that shot.  Feel has nothing to do with gathering information of distances on a course.

My argument is that players knew lengths between two points on courses in that era.  To be able to judge how far a ball went one must know the length between two different locations on a hole which supports the idea that some, if not many, golfers (especially good ones) would know some basic, approximate distances from tees to hazards, trees etc.  Are you telling me that Bobby Jones or Walter Hagen didn't have an approximate idea how far their 6-iron flew?  If they did why wouldn't they have gathered information to utilize their known distances with clubs?  They wouldn't care how far it flew if they couldn't use distance knowledge to better navigate a course which  This, once again, supports the notion that players would have general knowledge of approximate distances between two points on a course.  

How you could argue differently defies logic.  If you assume that players, or at least use information gathered from caddies that related to specific distances between two spots, of that era didn't do some general research of distances then you are truly ignorant to human behavior in regards to this issue.

This is getting fucking ridiculous.  My head is about to pop off.


Jeff F.

[John Moore II]

Let me write the meat of the article out...

Francis Ouimet, former national open and national amateur champion, points out from his personal experiences here and abroad many differences in golf as it is played here and across the ocean, and he gives the aspiring amateur advice as to how such differences may be eradicated.  The conquerer of Ray and Vardon believes that one of the main faults of American golfers is an inordinate desire for distance, with the additional error of trying to get this with a club not fitted for the work.  The average American golfer is too ready to boast of a 200-yard approach with a mashie instead of getting the same distance with a spared brassie.

If "underclubbing" is one of the chief faults in this country, overswinging is another.  Ouimet noticed that one of the rarest sights on the foreign links was to see a golfer play a full swing with an iron.  The short, firm, three-quarter swing gives more control, and the selection of the proper club gives all the distance that is required.  Accuracy with the irons, knowledge of how to play in wind, varieties in strokes for all sorts of conditions, and an appearance of "playing under wraps", with plenty of reserve power, are some of the distinguishing characteristics of the low handicap man in England as opposed to the American low mark player.  Many golfers in this country may get the same scores as those turned in by the experts on Musselburgh, St. Andrews, Blackheath, and the other famous courses abroad, but the end is reached by "main strength and awkwardness" in contrast to the ease and skill of the foreign golfers.


Now, Shivas, where does it insinuate that knowing distances is against the spirit of the game?  It does talk about the Englishman using a more controlled swing and using more "skill and ease" but why does that turn into that meaning that those players didn't know distances between two points on a course.  "A short, firm, three-quarter swing" doesn't sound like it has more feel than a long one.  How can you judge feel with that?  Who cares about feel as it relates to this topic?!  Just because I know a distance between two spots doesn't mean I use ZERO feel to execute that shot.  Feel has nothing to do with gathering information of distances on a course.

My argument is that players knew lengths between two points on courses in that era.  To be able to judge how far a ball went one must know the length between two different locations on a hole which supports the idea that some, if not many, golfers (especially good ones) would know some basic, approximate distances from tees to hazards, trees etc.  Are you telling me that Bobby Jones or Walter Hagen didn't have an approximate idea how far their 6-iron flew?  If they did why wouldn't they have gathered information to utilize their known distances with clubs?  They wouldn't care how far it flew if they couldn't use distance knowledge to better navigate a course which  This, once again, supports the notion that players would have general knowledge of approximate distances between two points on a course.  

How you could argue differently defies logic.  If you assume that players, or at least use information gathered from caddies that related to specific distances between two spots, of that era didn't do some general research of distances then you are truly ignorant to human behavior in regards to this issue.

This is getting fucking ridiculous.  My head is about to pop off.


Jeff F.


Grown men resorting to cursing at each other and insluting each other is what is 'fucking ridiculous' about this whole deal. Now please hold while I go use a rangefinder to shoot distances for my upcoming club championship

[Jeff Fortson]

Show me one example stating that the measuring of two distances on a course is contrary to the spirit of the game.


Jeff F.

That's not what's contrary to the spirit of the game.  What's contrary to the spirit of the game is the erosion of the judgment required to determine distance.  I believe that nobody would have said boo about a player back then who went out the day before a tournament and walked the course and paced off distances to or over hazards and such to get to know the golf course and develop a playing strategy for it.  I'm fairly certain that it happened regularly.

But that's not what we're talking about. 

What we're talking about with range finders and cheater lines is the introduction of artificial aids that lessen and/or eliminate the judgment required to determine line and distance during the stipulated round.  It's one thing to get information from a caddie, which has a long and storied history and tradition in the game as the player's valet and advisor (even though personally, I think golf would be a better game if the player were not allowed to receive advice from his caddie, but that's neither here nor there because the toothpaste was out of the tube long ago on that, and the caddies place in the history and spirit of the game is well entrenched).

It's quite another thing, however, to get that same information from a recent contrivance, an artificial aid.  Artificial aids have a long history in the spirit of the game, too:  a history of being BANNED. 

It's amazing to me that this history has been flipped 180 degrees like this to the point where cheater lines and lazer rangecheaters are now JUSTIFIED by the same spirit of the game that had banned them for centuries.     

Shvas,

See.  You need to go back and understand what Melvyn and I are debating.  He thinks using any aid (i.e. caddy,  yardage book, known memory of distances between two points, etc.) in determining distance is contrary to the "spirit" of the game.  In this debate I have consistently stated that I felt that using rangefinders is definitely debatable as to it breaking the spirit.  When it comes down to it I probably think they are low on the totem pole of breaking any spirit but could possibly fit in that category.  Melvyn seems to think that by knowing how far a bunker is because you did some homework before a tournament is cheating and against the soul and spirit of the game.  I simply feel that that precedent was never set by any governing body of the game or by any player of note.  Never have I seen anything supporting that the gathering of information between two points was something looked down upon or illegal in the era which Melvyn and I are debating.

Good riddance.


Jeff F.

[Jeff Fortson]

Let me write the meat of the article out...

Francis Ouimet, former national open and national amateur champion, points out from his personal experiences here and abroad many differences in golf as it is played here and across the ocean, and he gives the aspiring amateur advice as to how such differences may be eradicated.  The conquerer of Ray and Vardon believes that one of the main faults of American golfers is an inordinate desire for distance, with the additional error of trying to get this with a club not fitted for the work.  The average American golfer is too ready to boast of a 200-yard approach with a mashie instead of getting the same distance with a spared brassie.

If "underclubbing" is one of the chief faults in this country, overswinging is another.  Ouimet noticed that one of the rarest sights on the foreign links was to see a golfer play a full swing with an iron.  The short, firm, three-quarter swing gives more control, and the selection of the proper club gives all the distance that is required.  Accuracy with the irons, knowledge of how to play in wind, varieties in strokes for all sorts of conditions, and an appearance of "playing under wraps", with plenty of reserve power, are some of the distinguishing characteristics of the low handicap man in England as opposed to the American low mark player.  Many golfers in this country may get the same scores as those turned in by the experts on Musselburgh, St. Andrews, Blackheath, and the other famous courses abroad, but the end is reached by "main strength and awkwardness" in contrast to the ease and skill of the foreign golfers.


Now, Shivas, where does it insinuate that knowing distances is against the spirit of the game?  It does talk about the Englishman using a more controlled swing and using more "skill and ease" but why does that turn into that meaning that those players didn't know distances between two points on a course.  "A short, firm, three-quarter swing" doesn't sound like it has more feel than a long one.  How can you judge feel with that?  Who cares about feel as it relates to this topic?!  Just because I know a distance between two spots doesn't mean I use ZERO feel to execute that shot.  Feel has nothing to do with gathering information of distances on a course.

My argument is that players knew lengths between two points on courses in that era.  To be able to judge how far a ball went one must know the length between two different locations on a hole which supports the idea that some, if not many, golfers (especially good ones) would know some basic, approximate distances from tees to hazards, trees etc.  Are you telling me that Bobby Jones or Walter Hagen didn't have an approximate idea how far their 6-iron flew?  If they did why wouldn't they have gathered information to utilize their known distances with clubs?  They wouldn't care how far it flew if they couldn't use distance knowledge to better navigate a course which  This, once again, supports the notion that players would have general knowledge of approximate distances between two points on a course.  

How you could argue differently defies logic.  If you assume that players, or at least use information gathered from caddies that related to specific distances between two spots, of that era didn't do some general research of distances then you are truly ignorant to human behavior in regards to this issue.

This is getting fucking ridiculous.  My head is about to pop off.


Jeff F.


Grown men resorting to cursing at each other and insluting each other is what is 'fucking ridiculous' about this whole deal. Now please hold while I go use a rangefinder to shoot distances for my upcoming club championship

I cursed AT no one.  I was venting frustration.  I think I have been quite cordial in my posts.


Jeff F.

[Brent Hutto]

I will admit to having cursed at someone at one point in this thread, for which I apologize (and the comment has since been redacted). And you're both right, it's a f---ing ridiculous way for grown men to be acting.

[Kalen Braley]

I will admit to having cursed at someone at one point in this thread, for which I apologize (and the comment has since been redacted). And you're both right, it's a f---ing ridiculous way for grown men to be acting.

Look on the bright side guys...

This thread has been tons more civil than the recent Merion-esque threads which now seems to have died down for the moment! 

[John Moore II]

Jeff--either way, I find it interesting how fast things disintegrate into pissing contests here recently.

Kalen--Don't say that M word around here, its worse than any curse that can be said

[Dan King]

"Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in."
 --Michael Corleone

When I talk about the spirit of the game, it isn't about the Americanized version that started after the turn of the twentieth century. I believe the spirit of the game resides in Scotland. C.B. Macdonald warned us about the Americanization of golf one hundred years ago. Jeff, good job with the research, but they are still referring to the Americanized version of golf.

Cheers,
Dan King

Michael Corleone: What's wrong with being a lawyer?
Kay Corleone: Nothing, except he doesn't want it. He loves music he wants his life to be in music.
Michael Corleone: Well, music is great. I love music but he should finish what he started.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jeff

The overall length of a course and the length of each individual hole are completely different and do not reflect upon the input provided by the modern yardage aid. I would have thought that would have been obvious, but apparently not.

Let me say this for the final time, yardage information as defined by artificial aids are a modern. There was no equivalent of yardage markers until modern times. Young Tom was down in 3 on the 1st Hole (some 578 yard par 6) at Prestwick in 1870 buy no distance aids used. Yes talk was about how far they hit a ball, not measuring the distance prior to hitting it. He was also recorded as on of the longest driver of the Tee but yardage was not used in the way we are debating today or in connection with yardage aids. I have talked back in the Bar about how pleased I was with a shot and its approx distance but never worried about distance info prior to hitting the ball.


Brent
 
I have come across some vile and nasty comments in my time but I must admit you win hands down. Quite frankly I can’t understand the venom in your comments aimed at me, clearly you resent my connection with Old Tom, Golf and my involvement with GCA.com.

I have no intention of entering into a Merion type debate with either of you.

Trust that your game continues to give you what you seek.

[RSLivingston_III]

This is dated 1916 and references Ray, Vardon, Ouimet, and Hagen and how the Brits felt Americans were too consumed with hitting their clubs far.  Then talk about knowing specific distances their clubs went.  This suggests that they knew the length between two different spots on a course.  Otherwise, how would they measure this?...

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9A0DEFDF1E3FE233A2575BC0A9619C946796D6CF


Jeff F.

And this is somehow evidence that the spirit of the game is consumed with distance?  LOL! 

Has anybody else actually read this article?

What this article says is 100% the opposite:  that back then, the game was a game of feel and judgment and that the best players were NOT all-consumed with distance. 

What else ya' got to make our case for us, Jeff? 

Shivas,

Go back and re-read it.  Nowhere does it talk about the game being a game of feel and judgement.  It talks about how Americans "under-clubbed" and "over-swung".  It talks about how the English used 3/4 swings and reserved their energy going for accuracy while the Americans lashed at the ball.  It talks about how some were bragging about hitting their mashies over 200 yards.  Where does this article contradict my stance on measuring distance?   

For a lawyer that was a poor read my friend.


Jeff F.

At one time I had a copy of an article where Vardon commented on "the gluttony of long driving" in the US.
I think it was reinforced by the articles coming out that focused on unusually long shots by some of the pros.
i.e: Ted Ray hitting a Mashie Niblick out of deep rough and over a tree onto the green 160 yards away. His normal full swing would probably been something around 140 yards.

[JWinick]

Meylvn:

Your argument comes down to romantic ignorance.   You celebrate a lack of knowledge.   It's as if you are so afraid of distance information cluttering your brain.  You seem like a bright fellow, so I'm not quite sure why you have such hostility to knowledge about distance.   The object of the game is to move the ball from the tee to the hole in the fewest amount of strokes.  Distance, lie, and the elements are critical components in achieving that goal. 

You're like a blind man who wishes to stay blind because he fears the world.

Jeff

The overall length of a course and the length of each individual hole are completely different and do not reflect upon the input provided by the modern yardage aid. I would have thought that would have been obvious, but apparently not.

Let me say this for the final time, yardage information as defined by artificial aids are a modern. There was no equivalent of yardage markers until modern times. Young Tom was down in 3 on the 1st Hole (some 578 yard par 6) at Prestwick in 1870 buy no distance aids used. Yes talk was about how far they hit a ball, not measuring the distance prior to hitting it. He was also recorded as on of the longest driver of the Tee but yardage was not used in the way we are debating today or in connection with yardage aids. I have talked back in the Bar about how pleased I was with a shot and its approx distance but never worried about distance info prior to hitting the ball.


Brent
 
I have come across some vile and nasty comments in my time but I must admit you win hands down. Quite frankly I can’t understand the venom in your comments aimed at me, clearly you resent my connection with Old Tom, Golf and my involvement with GCA.com.

I have no intention of entering into a Merion type debate with either of you.

Trust that your game continues to give you what you seek.

[Bill_McBride]

Meylvn:

Your argument comes down to romantic ignorance.   You celebrate a lack of knowledge.   It's as if you are so afraid of distance information cluttering your brain.  You seem like a bright fellow, so I'm not quite sure why you have such hostility to knowledge about distance.   The object of the game is to move the ball from the tee to the hole in the fewest amount of strokes.  Distance, lie, and the elements are critical components in achieving that goal. 

You're like a blind man who wishes to stay blind because he fears the world.

JW, that could be the meanest spirited comment I've ever read on GCA.com.  You need to take a breather.  Everybody is entitled to an opinion and doesn't need to be belittled for stating it.  If someone doesn't concur with your opinion, what gives you the right to say his argument "comes down to romantic ignorance."  What makes you right?

This thread is worse in my mind than the Merion thread(s).  A lot more people involved basically sneering at others over their opinions.

[JWinick]

Dan:

Who cares?   Great, the Scots invented golf.   Does it mean the game can't evolve?   Why do we have cede ownership to its inventors?  Do they hold a patent on it?

This obsession with playing the game the way the inventors played it is absurd.  In no other sport does anyone attempt to do that.  Do football fans wish to return to the day of no forward pass?  

Finally, aren't you an American?  America has 50% of the golf courses.   Stop bad-mouthing our interpretation of the game.  

"Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in."
 --Michael Corleone

When I talk about the spirit of the game, it isn't about the Americanized version that started after the turn of the twentieth century. I believe the spirit of the game resides in Scotland. C.B. Macdonald warned us about the Americanization of golf one hundred years ago. Jeff, good job with the research, but they are still referring to the Americanized version of golf.

Cheers,
Dan King

Michael Corleone: What's wrong with being a lawyer?
Kay Corleone: Nothing, except he doesn't want it. He loves music he wants his life to be in music.
Michael Corleone: Well, music is great. I love music but he should finish what he started.

[JWinick]

Not at all.  I think Melvyn knows that I respect him, his family, and the way he plays the game.  But the vehemence in which he bemoans any advances in the game is worth responding to.   

Meylvn:

Your argument comes down to romantic ignorance.   You celebrate a lack of knowledge.   It's as if you are so afraid of distance information cluttering your brain.  You seem like a bright fellow, so I'm not quite sure why you have such hostility to knowledge about distance.   The object of the game is to move the ball from the tee to the hole in the fewest amount of strokes.  Distance, lie, and the elements are critical components in achieving that goal. 

You're like a blind man who wishes to stay blind because he fears the world.

JW, that could be the meanest spirited comment I've ever read on GCA.com.  You need to take a breather.  Everybody is entitled to an opinion and doesn't need to be belittled for stating it.  If someone doesn't concur with your opinion, what gives you the right to say his argument "comes down to romantic ignorance."  What makes you right?

This thread is worse in my mind than the Merion thread(s).  A lot more people involved basically sneering at others over their opinions.

[Bill_McBride]

Not at all.  I think Melvyn knows that I respect him, his family, and the way he plays the game.  But the vehemence in which he bemoans any advances in the game is worth responding to.   

Meylvn:

Your argument comes down to romantic ignorance.   You celebrate a lack of knowledge.   It's as if you are so afraid of distance information cluttering your brain.  You seem like a bright fellow, so I'm not quite sure why you have such hostility to knowledge about distance.   The object of the game is to move the ball from the tee to the hole in the fewest amount of strokes.  Distance, lie, and the elements are critical components in achieving that goal. 

You're like a blind man who wishes to stay blind because he fears the world.

JW, that could be the meanest spirited comment I've ever read on GCA.com.  You need to take a breather.  Everybody is entitled to an opinion and doesn't need to be belittled for stating it.  If someone doesn't concur with your opinion, what gives you the right to say his argument "comes down to romantic ignorance."  What makes you right?

This thread is worse in my mind than the Merion thread(s).  A lot more people involved basically sneering at others over their opinions.

Up to a point I would agree, but I personally feel you have gone way beyond that point in the last few posts.  This thread has gone on way too long and I for one am off it.

Cheers,
Bill

[John Moore II]

Meylvn:

Your argument comes down to romantic ignorance.   You celebrate a lack of knowledge.   It's as if you are so afraid of distance information cluttering your brain.  You seem like a bright fellow, so I'm not quite sure why you have such hostility to knowledge about distance.   The object of the game is to move the ball from the tee to the hole in the fewest amount of strokes.  Distance, lie, and the elements are critical components in achieving that goal. 

You're like a blind man who wishes to stay blind because he fears the world.

JW, that could be the meanest spirited comment I've ever read on GCA.com.  You need to take a breather.  Everybody is entitled to an opinion and doesn't need to be belittled for stating it.  If someone doesn't concur with your opinion, what gives you the right to say his argument "comes down to romantic ignorance."  What makes you right?

This thread is worse in my mind than the Merion thread(s).  A lot more people involved basically sneering at others over their opinions.

Bill I think you hit the nail on the head with what you said. People get far too involved and personal in attacks and such here recently. I never recall seeing such discussions as this exept betwee Tom Paul and Macwood/Moriarty. Now it seems that everyone wants to start attacking personally anyone who does not agree with them. It frankly undermines the good work that has been done and can be done again by people on this site.

[Dan King]

JWinick writes:
Who cares?

Me.

Great, the Scots invented golf.   Does it mean the game can't evolve?   Why do we have cede ownership to its inventors?  Do they hold a patent on it?

I was responding to posts about the spirit of the game. In other parts of this thread and elsewhere I've talked about the evolution of golf. But in talking about the spirit of the game I would go back to the spirit before American golfers started changing the game (for what I think is the worst)

This obsession with playing the game the way the inventors played it is absurd.  In no other sport does anyone attempt to do that.  Do football fans wish to return to the day of no forward pass? 

We are now discussing the spirit of the game. I was saying what I think of the spirit of the game. The earlier practitioners of the game are important when discussing the spirit of the game. If you think the spirit of the game started a couple weeks ago then we really have no frame of reference to continue any discussion about the spirit of the game. We can discuss other subjects, but not the spirit of the game.

This is another very American attitude. Wanting all sports to be the same. Some people like golf for the game's uniqueness. You want it to be American football.

Finally, aren't you an American?  America has 50% of the golf courses.   Stop bad-mouthing our interpretation of the game.

Why would my nationality matter?

There are certain things about America I like, other things I dislike. I don't like much of what America has done to golf. By any chance is your attitude: "America, love it or leave it"?

Cheers,
Dan King

You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.
 --Winston Churchill

[JWinick]

There's nothing wrong with spirited debate.   I condemn personal attacks and profane language.   "Romantic Ignorance" is a good way of characterizing Melyvn's view.   He doesn't want to know the distance accurately, but wants to guess using his senses.   Us, who want to know are weak mentally and have been described as such.  

Read my posts.   Just because I started this thread, it doesn't mean I am responsible for every comment that some might consider personal.   I am being confused with other posters or you're not reading my posts correctly.

Without spirited debate, this site becomes irrelevant and boring.   I think you can attack someone's views without attacking them personally.

[JWinick]

The spirit of the game is important, yes, but the game has evolved.   And, the spirit has changed.   Call it Americanization, or whatever you want.   Lately, it's been Americans like C&C and Tom Doak who have been bringing the game back to its roots.   I support that.  I'm a traditionalists with a modern bent.   No, I don't want golf to be like football.  But, I think it's interesting that in no other activity to people seek to keep things the way they were 100 years ago.   

No, we like you Dan and wouldn't want you any other way.   I just bristle how you keep acting as if Americans have screwed up your beloved game.   

JWinick writes:
Who cares?

Me.

Great, the Scots invented golf.   Does it mean the game can't evolve?   Why do we have cede ownership to its inventors?  Do they hold a patent on it?

I was responding to posts about the spirit of the game. In other parts of this thread and elsewhere I've talked about the evolution of golf. But in talking about the spirit of the game I would go back to the spirit before American golfers started changing the game (for what I think is the worst)

This obsession with playing the game the way the inventors played it is absurd.  In no other sport does anyone attempt to do that.  Do football fans wish to return to the day of no forward pass? 

We are now discussing the spirit of the game. I was saying what I think of the spirit of the game. The earlier practitioners of the game are important when discussing the spirit of the game. If you think the spirit of the game started a couple weeks ago then we really have no frame of reference to continue any discussion about the spirit of the game. We can discuss other subjects, but not the spirit of the game.

This is another very American attitude. Wanting all sports to be the same. Some people like golf for the game's uniqueness. You want it to be American football.

Finally, aren't you an American?  America has 50% of the golf courses.   Stop bad-mouthing our interpretation of the game.

Why would my nationality matter?

There are certain things about America I like, other things I dislike. I don't like much of what America has done to golf. By any chance is your attitude: "America, love it or leave it"?

Cheers,
Dan King

You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.
 --Winston Churchill

[Brent Hutto]

I have come across some vile and nasty comments in my time but I must admit you win hands down. Quite frankly I can’t understand the venom in your comments aimed at me, clearly you resent my connection with Old Tom, Golf and my involvement with GCA.com.

You've got to be kidding. Are you talking about this comment?

Hey, we're as interested in your thoughts as we are anyone else's.

But I'd suggest it might be wise to keep your insults to yourself in the future, especially given the way you refuse to retract or soften them when faced with facts that out and out contradict your assertions.

In the end, we're left with you simply restating over and over your distaste and resentment toward anyone who plays the game in a manner that differs from your own oddball quirks. That serves no purpose other than making you look bad and encouraging useless pissing contests on the forum (of which we admittedly have a long history and I'm as guilty as anyone).

You seemed to be threatening to leave the forum since people were arguing with you. I pointed out that it was not your "thoughts" that are annoying but your broad brush insults of anyone who does things in a manner differently than yourself. You appear to believe that you are so in the right that when someone responds to your insults in a similar tone it is beyond the bounds of decency.

I'd suggest you use the forum's search feature and skim through the last hundred or so messages you've posted. But in doing so try to put yourself in the shoes of the people whose behavior you denigrate and put down repeatedly. Ask yourself if by any chance you could have refrained from all the "ruining the game" and "you must be miserable" invective while still making your own points emphatically.

I don't expect you to play golf the way I do. And since you're several thousand miles away I wouldn't know the difference anyway. What I do insist is that in our interactions on this forum we both acknowledge that different people have different preferences and that we can share the parts of the game that we have in common while discussing the areas of difference civilly. And I will point out when you are not doing that, bluntly if necessary.

[Kalen Braley]

Seriously folks....

I'm not a model citizen by any means on GCA.com, but I think its time to let this thread cool off a bit.

I think every possible and conceiveable viewpoint has been voiced 4 times over, so I think we know where everyone stands. I agree with spirited discussion but its gone beyond that...none of us really want this to turn into a Merion-type thread do we???!!!

Switching gears, how about a different topic.  What is Michelle Wie up to these days?   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()