[Tom Huckaby]

Now THAT was good Dave.
 

BTW I have no pre-shout routine, other than two quick waggles, something I started doing many years ago because Nicklaus said it was good to do.  Back then he could have said it was good to stand on one's head before the shot and I likely would have tried it.  But I started doing that at least 20 years ago, and I never stopped.  I do believe I play pretty quickly.  Of course, I am molasses compared to Bob Huntley, who tends to be done and the shot on the way before most are ready to look at the ball.

I am with you on pre-shot routines, my friend... good god that is the sure among the biggest slow play problems I see.

TH

ps - Peter - right on brother.

[JC Jones]

Thread jacker.

[Brad Swanson]

I am with you on pre-shot routines, my friend... good god that is the sure among the biggest slow play problems I see.

TH

Funny story from this weekend.  My 2 year old was hitting his plastic golf balls around the house this weekend, which he has been doing for quite awhile now.  For some reason, he has started to squat down behind the ball for some 15 or more seconds before standing up and hitting it.  He's still on the learning curve for potty training, so my 1st thought was that he was filling his shorts, but it turns-out he's already developed a pre-shot routine from watching the pros on TV.   

Cheers,
Brad

[JC Jones]

My kids did the same thing.  God Save This Game.

The problem is that it is not just the tour that is the problem.  I remember as a teenager working at various courses hearing several teaching pros drilling the pre-shot routine into their students' heads.

For me, I say take a few swings if you need to but do it while the another player is hitting and then after they hit, you are ready to pull the trigger.

[Dan King]

DSchmidt writes:
Alex, don't shoot the messenger.  It's the USGA's rules, not mine.  I'm terribly sorry if everybody has a problem with there only being one way to play golf, but that never was - and is not - my decision.  

I never understood this attitude. So did golf exist prior to the USGA? Prior to the R&A?

The ruling bodies have designed a bastardized version of the true game of golf, and we should play their game just because they tell us that is the way to play?

I'd much rather play golf my way, and since it is closer to what I consider the true nature of the game I'm gonna call it golf.

Cheers,
Dan King

Moderation is essential in all things, madam, but never in my life have I failed to beat a teetotaller.
  --Harry Vardon

[JC Jones]

The ruling bodies have designed a bastardized version of the true game of golf, and we should play their game just because they tell us that is the way to play?

So, Dan, when was the game of golf true, and not bastardized?

I agree with you, BTW, but I guarantee that your version of the game does not include range finders, cheater lines, drop zones, lift clean & cheat, rake & roll, removing stones in hazards or any of the other bastardizations we agree on...

So do you play by the rules as promulgated by the USGA or do you play by some of the rules as promulgated by the USGA and not those that you feel have been "bastardized"?

If the latter, what makes you different from the people you lament?  What are your thoughts on local rules?  Why should a golf course be able to deviate or usurp the USGA rules and not an individual golfer?

[JC Jones]

JC:  Except for tournaments (which I do not play in any more), I do not play by USGA rules.  But I do not convince myself that I am playing Golf when doing so.

Bobby Jones said "There's golf and there's tournament golf and the two bear little resemblance". 

You're either playing Golf or you're playing bumper-golf, IMO.  Most of the time, I play bumper golf, so I guess that makes me no different than anybody else, other than in that I do not believe that I'm playing Golf when I play by local rules and other "bastardizations" (as Dan King called these deviations). 

BTW, golf courses don't deviate from the USGA rules.  Committees do.  And the reason the Committee can, but the individual golfer can't is that if the latter were considered Golf, there would be no rules at all and chaos and anarchy would rule the day.  There must be one set of rules for all players on the same course to play by.  If you're asking whether there should be local rules, my answer is "no".  Local rules are the gateway drug that spawned the bastardizations Dan spoke of.

To clarify:

1)  You do not play Golf.
2)  Your arguments against cheater lines, etc., largely premised on them not being in accordance with USGA rules are disingenuous because you do not play the game in accordance with USGA rules.

Unless, of course, you are saying that your deviations from the USGA rules are ok, and other deviations that you do not choose to participate in, are not.

I think one can play golf (whether you capitalize the G or not) anyway they see fit and still be playing the game of golf.  The only question is whether they are playing in accordance with the USGA rules or not.  I personally see no difference between local rules as decided on by a committee and rules as decided on by a foursome or playing competitors.

[Dan King]

DSchmidt writes:
So, Dan, when was the game of golf true, and not bastardized?

It is all just governing me, not anyone else. In my always very humble opinion, the game is about playing the ball and the course as you find it. The governing bodies have books full of exemptions to these two very simple rules. I reject their exemptions and consider them very far afield of what golf is all about. They have destroyed the game of golf (again IMHO) and have failed miserably as guardians of the game.

I agree with you, BTW, but I guarantee that your version of the game does not include range finders, cheater lines, drop zones, lift clean & cheat, rake & roll, removing stones in hazards or any of the other bastardizations we agree on...

Yep, all of those are in opposition to the two natural laws of golf and should have been rejected by the governing bodies if they truly were the guardians of the game.

Jc Jones writes:
So do you play by the rules as promulgated by the USGA or do you play by some of the rules as promulgated by the USGA and not those that you feel have been "bastardized"?

My natural rules of golf pre-date the USGA. The USGA has done their best to destroy the game of golf and therefore I do not recognize them as the governing body of the game of golf I play.

Cheers,
Dan King

You are meant to play the ball as it lies, a fact that may help to touch on your own objective approach to life.
 --Grantland Rice

[JC Jones]

Dan,

Fair enough.  Question, when you hit a tee shot and it appears as though it may be lost, do you play a provisional and continue with the provisional if your ball is indeed lost or, rather, do you go look for your ball and if you cant find it, drop a new one (with penalty) where you thought your tee shot ended up?

I have always felt that having to play another shot from the teeing ground WITH a stroke penalty was excessive.

[Tom Huckaby]

Dan,

Fair enough.  Question, when you hit a tee shot and it appears as though it may be lost, do you play a provisional and continue with the provisional if your ball is indeed lost or, rather, do you go look for your ball and if you cant find it, drop a new one (with penalty) where you thought your tee shot ended up?

I have always felt that having to play another shot from the teeing ground WITH a stroke penalty was excessive.

If you think I'm harsh, JC, wait 'till you hear the answer to this one under the Dan rules!

Dave, I was just thinking the EXACT same thing.  You are a wuss compared to Dan... 

JC - the stroke and distance penalty is necessary in competition (due to vagueness of the "where I thought I lost it" concept) but is also totally silly for casual play.  Hell yes, just drop and move on. 

TH

[JC Jones]

Folks, don't every let anyone on this board ever convince you that I'm the one who engages in sophistry around here.... 

JC:  your argument is hogwash and I know that you not only know it but also know why.  There is no logical inconsistency or disingenuineness in playing golf while calling it golf vs. decrying the decay of Golf.   None at all.  By your logic, a man who regularly drives 40 mph down down a 30 mph road (but knows full well he's speeding) would be disingenuous to either (A) call for a reduction of the speed limit to 25 mph or (b) tell others who drive 35 mph that they're not obeying the posted speed limit.  This, of course, is total, complete, utter nonsense.   

Under your hypothetical above, it would certainly be disingenuous, if not hypocritical for the man to do either A or B.  It is the equivalent of do what I say and not what I do.   Especially when one espouses the moral high ground (in this case claiming to defend Golf) when doing either A or B. 

It is certainly not sophism so tell someone that they are disingenuous when they make statements like "God save this Game," all the while they are engaging in the very practice that is causing its demise.

[Bill Shamleffer]

GCA brethren,

In light of some recent discussions on how one plays the game, I thought it would be interesting to conduct a brief survey of GCA member's playing preferences.  

1) Do you prefer walking or riding?
 WALKING - ONLY!

2) Do you use a rangefinder/GPS device to judge distance?
 No

3) Do you always play the ball as it lies?
 Yes

4) At one point is a putt "good?"
 < 1'

5) Do you keep a handicap?
 No

6) Do you generally wager?
 No

7) Under what weather circumstances will you not play?
 Lightening & < 40 degress

Do you take lessons?
 No

9) Do you generally hit practice balls on the driving range before a round?
 No (but prefer to when possible.)

10) Do you use a line on a golf ball to align your putt?
 No

[JC Jones]

JC, Dan does not always follow this board closely, so let me take a stab at it and he can correct me if I'm wrong.

As I understand it, Dan only plays matches and Dan Golf has only 2 rules (the ball must be played as it lies and that player may never touch the ball until it's holed).  Thus, Dan plays stymies and does not have any provision for water hazards, OB, unplayable lies or anything like that.  In Dan Golf, the first guy unable to play his ball loses the hole and the match moves on.  Simple as that. 

So the interesting question for Dan is:  if two competitors both pump it OB or into the water off the tee, what happens?   

That is harsh, but part of me kind of likes it.

Otherwise, its a gentleman's game, drop where you thought you lost it and move on.  I see no reason why one can estimate where a ball entered a water hazard based on its line of flight and drop anywhere along that line and not doing the same for a lost ball.

[Tom Huckaby]

Dave:  that's my understanding of Dan Golf also.  But I believe he has answered this before.... first guy who loses it loses the hole.  But I too look forward to his answer.

I still don't get why you care what anyone calls the game they play; why it bothers you if they want to call it Golf (yes, capital G).  But care you do... as evidenced by what you call Dan's game.... his game gets the capital G, all other bastardizations get called ___ball.  You don't find Dan's game to be a bastardization of the "real thing" as much as anything else?  I wonder if the first shepherds even played his way.. the Leith Rules sure are a wuss version of Dan's game.  



TH

[JC Jones]

Under your hypothetical above, it would certainly be disingenuous, if not hypocritical for the man to do either A or B.  It is the equivalent of do what I say and not what I do.   Especially when one espouses the moral high ground (in this case claiming to defend Golf) when doing either A or B. 

It is certainly not sophism so tell someone that they are disingenuous when they make statements like "God save this Game," all the while they are engaging in the very practice that is causing its demise.

JC, the problem is that I'm not saying "do what I say, not what I do."  I'm not saying you must play Golf.  I'm saying "go ahead and play 16ClubLaserCartCheaterLineMullieFluffball, just don't call it Golf".

So there's no hypocrisy, except, of course, among those that know they're playing 16ClubLaserCartCheaterLineMullieFluffball and insist on calling it Golf. 

so we're cool as long as I dont capitalize the "G"?  Also, can God really save Golf if nobody plays it anymore?

[JC Jones]

As I said before, JC, 3-on-3 is a fun and perfectly fine game ... it's just not Basketball.

is it Basketball when you play by NBA rules?  NCAA rules?  FIBA? 

[Dan King]

DSchmidt writes:
JC, Dan does not always follow this board closely, so let me take a stab at it and he can correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm following it right now, but can't guarantee I'll be following it in 20 minutes. The good news is you are doing a fine job speaking for me.

As I understand it, Dan only plays matches and Dan Golf has only 2 rules (the ball must be played as it lies and that player may never touch the ball until it's holed).  Thus, Dan plays stymies and does not have any provision for water hazards, OB, unplayable lies or anything like that.  In Dan Golf, the first guy unable to play his ball loses the hole and the match moves on.  Simple as that. 

Actually you can also play this game medal. If you're unable to play your ball for any reason you are DQed.

So the interesting question for Dan is:  if two competitors both pump it OB or into the water off the tee, what happens?

Assuming I would even recognize OB :-) when the first hits it OB, why would the second even hit a shot? I guess if the first hits it into a hazard, the second player should still play because who knows if the first will be able to play his ball or not. I know this is adding rules, but I guess I do have a third rule, whoever is farthest from the hole plays first. So if the player farthest from the hole can not play, then they lose the hole.

Generally we don't worry about hypotheticals. We play the game with honorable people who play the game fairly. If someone decides it is more important to win than to play honorably, they will not be invited back.

Cheers,
Dan King

Golf is the cruelest if sports. Like life, it's unfair. It's a harlot. A trollop. It leads you on. It never lives up to it's promises. . . It's a boulevard of broken dreams. It plays with men. And runs off with the butcher.
 --Jim Murray

[JC Jones]

Dan,

I like your rules.  Especially "Even assuming I recognize OB". 

[John Foley]

As I said before, JC, 3-on-3 is a fun and perfectly fine game ... it's just not Basketball.

Dave, Dave Dave....

There is no differnce in the rules (or their interpetation) of the game whether there are 6 or 10 particpants on the court.



 

[JC Jones]

As I said before, JC, 3-on-3 is a fun and perfectly fine game ... it's just not Basketball.

is it Basketball when you play by NBA rules?  NCAA rules?  FIBA? 

Yes. 

Nice try.  Unfortunately, your argument that basketball is Basketball because it is played according to rules of some/any self-proclaimed governing body (who establishes rules in no less of an arbitrary fashion than the 6 people playing 3-on-3) is hogwash and nonsensical.

Especially since you just got done saying that golf wasn't Golf even if played according to the rules of the USGA/R&A.  The words give a name to the game, not to the rules under which it is played.

In fact, the very name basketball defines the game as one with a basket and a ball.  I believe that is all naismith required.

[JC Jones]

John, at least where I'm from, 3 on 3 is a halfcourt game...that's the distinction.

Naismith only had 1 basket on his court.....

[John Foley]

John, at least where I'm from, 3 on 3 is a halfcourt game...that's the distinction.

Maybe the folks in Chi town are to worried about Brat-slippage play 3 on 3 full court

[Tom Huckaby]

Dan:

This is great stuff, as always.

And I have played Dan Golf, as you may recall from previous stabs at this.  It was darn fun to play as match play.  But while it CAN be played medal, of course... it makes for a short game the first time one hits the ball in the water or otherwise loses his ball.  DQ.  It might be fun ONCE as a survival test... but well....

Your game is rather geared toward match play.

 

BTW... seriously... how many times have you really played Dan Golf?

I couldn't get my friends to do it more than once.

TH

[JC Jones]

John, at least where I'm from, 3 on 3 is a halfcourt game...that's the distinction.

Naismith only had 1 basket on his court.....

And The Old Course only had 4 holes.  So what?

These are all red herrings - diversions to disguise and dilute deleterious destructive dilusional dastardly deviance.

sophistic alliteration.  brilliant.

[JC Jones]

The ruling bodies have designed a bastardized version of the true game of golf, and we should play their game just because they tell us that is the way to play?

So, Dan, when was the game of golf true, and not bastardized?

I agree with you, BTW, but I guarantee that your version of the game does not include range finders, cheater lines, drop zones, lift clean & cheat, rake & roll, removing stones in hazards or any of the other bastardizations we agree on...

Especially since you just got done saying that golf wasn't Golf even if played according to the rules of the USGA/R&A. 

No I didn't.   I said golf played under the bastion of bastardization a/k/a local rules - citing the most noxious among them - is not Golf.   

Can you reconcile the above, please?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()