Are you kidding me? Play suspended for wind?

[Garland Bayley]

Garland:

I'm talking about what happened at the British Open today with suspension of play due to wind, not emoticons or Dan Kelly or your sense of humor or your sense of irony.

Yea, well Tom, Melvyn and I think they are all a bunch of wuusses. (emoticon omitted)

[TEPaul]

"Yea, well Tom, Melvyn and I think they are all a bunch of wuusses. (emoticon omitted)"


Garland:

I'm well aware of that, believe me. And that is precisely why I think, and I bet most others do too who are actually part and parcel of tournament golf and tournament golf administration, tend not to take people like you and Melvyn seriously! (emoticon included)

[Garland Bayley]

"Yea, well Tom, Melvyn and I think they are all a bunch of wuusses. (emoticon omitted)"


Garland:

I'm well aware of that, believe me. And that is precisely why I think, and I bet most others do too who are actually part and parcel of tournament golf and tournament golf administration, tend not to take people like you and Melvyn seriously! (emoticon included)

LOL

[Ken Moum]

Garland:

I'm talking about what happened at the British Open today with suspension of play due to wind, not emoticons or Dan Kelly or your sense of humor or your sense of irony.

Yea, well Tom, Melvyn and I think they are all a bunch of wuusses. (emoticon omitted)

The fact that they (Tour pros) are wusses, and whiners, and a couple of other things, doesn't preclude the possibility that the R&A did the right thing by suspending play for 66 minutes.

Just like the old saw, "The fact that you are paranoid doesn't necessarily mean they aren't out to get you."

[Mark Chaplin]

21 hours into a long long shift so missed all of yesterdays play, hoping to get relieved in a couple of then a three hour drive! Interesting that on Thursday TOC was a joke, too easy, not relevant, greens too slow. Now it's too rough and greens too quick!!

[David_Tepper]

"Yea, well Tom, Melvyn and I think they are all a bunch of wuusses."

Talk about the blind leading the deaf!!!
(Or maybe, it's the deaf leading the blind)

[Garland Bayley]

"Yea, well Tom, Melvyn and I think they are all a bunch of wuusses."

Talk about the blind leading the deaf!!!
(Or maybe, it's the deaf leading the blind)

Jeez David,

Talk about taking a quote out of context! You left out the all important "emoticon omitted"! (emoticon omitted)

[TEPaul]

"LOL"

I don't doubt that Garland. It seems to me that's about all you're capable of. But don't worry about it; you're probably not the only one on here. I've been on this website since the day it started and its pretty shocking to consider the people who once were on here but who aren't here anymore and to consider the ones who essentially took their places.

But I guess that's just the way of the world or perhaps the way of the new Internet world; it seems to be either redundant after a time or some kind of devolving down process. And maybe like most of the rest of them who made this site back then but who are gone now I probably should think about doing the same as they did.

I say that because when I listen to the same unlearned and inexperienced musings and whinning as I hear on here most everyday and day after day from you and your ilk about basically everything to do with golf----eg tech matters, architectural matters, tournament and tournament administration matters etc, etc, it's pretty depressing really. I think what you and your type need is some good old fashioned experience in golf, tournament golf and golf and tournament administration.

Do you have any of that and if not why not? And if you don't, the next logical question is are you ever going to get it? And after that if the answer isn't yes the next question is, why not?   

[DMoriarty]

"LOL"

I don't doubt that Garland. It seems to me that's about all you're capable of. But don't worry about it; you're probably not the only one on here. I've been on this website since the day it started and its pretty shocking to consider the people who once were on here but who aren't here anymore and to consider the ones who essentially took their places.

But I guess that's just the way of the world or perhaps the way of the new Internet world; it seems to be either redundant after a time or some kind of devolving down process. And maybe like most of the rest of them who made this site back then but who are gone now I probably should think about doing the same as they did.

I say that because when I listen to the same unlearned and inexperienced musings and whinning as I hear on here most everyday and day after day from you and your ilk about basically everything to do with golf----eg tech matters, architectural matters, tournament and tournament administration matters etc, etc, it's pretty depressing really. I think what you and your type need is some good old fashioned experience in golf, tournament golf and golf and tournament administration.

Do you have any of that and if not why not? And if you don't, the next logical question is are you ever going to get it? And after that if the answer isn't yes the next question is, why not?    

Garland,

This is the kind of crap I was referring to in the other thread, where I wrote about how personal experience is used as some sort of an ultimate trump card.  I mean look at it!  The post is completely bereft of any substance, and consists of nothing more than an attack on you personally and an accusation that your opinion is worthless because you haven't wasted enough of your life hanging out at blue blood golf tournaments.    What a farce.

[Garland Bayley]

"LOL"

I don't doubt that Garland. It seems to me that's about all you're capable of. But don't worry about it; you're probably not the only one on here. I've been on this website since the day it started and its pretty shocking to consider the people who once were on here but who aren't here anymore and to consider the ones who essentially took their places.

But I guess that's just the way of the world or perhaps the way of the new Internet world; it seems to be either redundant after a time or some kind of devolving down process. And maybe like most of the rest of them who made this site back then but who are gone now I probably should think about doing the same as they did.

I say that because when I listen to the same unlearned and inexperienced musings and whinning as I hear on here most everyday and day after day from you and your ilk about basically everything to do with golf----eg tech matters, architectural matters, tournament and tournament administration matters etc, etc, it's pretty depressing really. I think what you and your type need is some good old fashioned experience in golf, tournament golf and golf and tournament administration.

Do you have any of that and if not why not? And if you don't, the next logical question is are you ever going to get it? And after that if the answer isn't yes the next question is, why not?   

Come on Tom Paul. Lighten up and poke fun at everything! You're not on here to gain access to courses are you? I thought not!
So what's to lose?

I do take issue with "that's about all you're capable of" since if you would codgitate on it, you might find that sometimes I'm ahead of the game. For example, the ball issue. I was telling about how, and how much distance the ball had gained while the USGA was busy obfuscating the issue. Eventually you came out with the amazing revelation that the USGA had told you that I was exactly right (although by that time I don't think you remembered what I had written on the issue, and so had no idea you were proving my point).

There are a lot of "in the box" thinkers on here that accept conventional "wisdom" even when it isn't very wise. E.g., the group that buys the modern clubs are wonderful line the manufacturers have fed them.

Well time for me to go crawl back in my hole, and make life difficult.

[DMoriarty]

He can't have admitted you were correct on the ball issue, Garland.  Because that would mean I was correct as well, and we know he will never admit that. 

[TEPaul]

"I do take issue with "that's about all you're capable of" since if you would codgitate on it, you might find that sometimes I'm ahead of the game. For example, the ball issue. I was telling about how, and how much distance the ball had gained while the USGA was busy obfuscating the issue. Eventually you came out with the amazing revelation that the USGA had told you that I was exactly right (although by that time I don't think you remembered what I had written on the issue, and so had no idea you were proving my point)."


Garland:

That's all probably true to a point. Do you actually think because you said something on here such as on the ball issue that you were the one who thought of it or originated some point or that you were someone who was ahead of the game on it?? If I agreed with you on what you said do you really think it was because you told me or golf or the USGA or its tech center about it or about something they did not already know??

Look, man, we're all real happy you're figuring things out but could you at least try not to flatter yourself into thinking you were the one who thought these things through in the first place?

[Garland Bayley]

He can't have admitted you were correct on the ball issue, Garland.  Because that would mean I was correct as well, and we know he will never admit that. 

Well if you would just let him know that you name is SHolmes, maybe he would be a little more flexible.

[TEPaul]

Garland:

That you and particularly Moriarty actually think you figured out something about the ball issue that the USGA doesn't already know has me picking myself up off the floor with laughter. God almighty are you two naive! Well, let me allay that; maybe you're just naive but he's completely arrogantly naive or naively arrogant which I've never seen you as being on here.

[Ulrich Mayring]

This thread is deteriorating. And it wasn't overly strong to begin with

Ulrich

[Carl Nichols]

Ulrich:
From bad to worse, as they say.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Lets be honest - Its very simple  you are either a golfer or not,

Play links courses and what the hell do you expect, the wind is part of the magic of the game and common sense needs to prevail not protecting a players score.

Melvyn

[Tom Birkert]

Melvyn,

Common sense is to not have a Major Championship decided by whose ball gets blown further away by gusts of wind. A situation like that would make the R&A, and indeed golf, a laughing stock.

The wind - and indeed all weather variables - are part and parcel of golf, but when the ball is being blown on the greens then play has to be suspended in the interests of fairness to competitors.

I think the R&A were not protecting the scores of the players, but rather protecting the integrity and reputation of the Championship.

I spoke with a friend who is a rules official and is at St Andrews this week. He says that the greens around the loop were unplayable when they suspended play.

There's a big difference between a social round of golf (play on in all conditions if you so wish) and a major championship with hundreds of millions of people watching worldwide. To let them play on and have penalties galore - through no fault of their own - would have been ridiculous.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland:

That you and particularly Moriarty actually think you figured out something about the ball issue that the USGA doesn't already know has me picking myself up off the floor with laughter. God almighty are you two naive! Well, let me allay that; maybe you're just naive but he's completely arrogantly naive or naively arrogant which I've never seen you as being on here.

Tom go find your dictionary. Look up the word obfuscate. If you don't understand the definition look up all the words in the definitions recursively until you find all the words you know, and perhaps get a grasp on the definition of obfuscate.

Sherlock and I knew very well that the USGA knew, and we said we believed they did. And they proved us right by eventually coming up with the goods.

If you choose to call me naive and arrogant, well then I have a word for you and it is not a complicated one that you will have trouble understanding. SSSSSSSSSSSSSLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWW.  

[TEPaul]

Garland:

That's quite the post punctuation there. Are you trying to immitate Matt Ward? No, I don't think you're arrogant and I didn't say that. Read what you quoted again.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland:

That's quite the post punctuation there. Are you trying to immitate Matt Ward? No, I don't think you're arrogant and I didn't say that. Read what you quoted again.

Yep, you got me on that one. Guess I was seeing red after you called me naive. So, I have to revise you to SSLLOOWW.

[JSlonis]

Melvyn,

Common sense is to not have a Major Championship decided by whose ball gets blown further away by gusts of wind. A situation like that would make the R&A, and indeed golf, a laughing stock.

The wind - and indeed all weather variables - are part and parcel of golf, but when the ball is being blown on the greens then play has to be suspended in the interests of fairness to competitors.

I think the R&A were not protecting the scores of the players, but rather protecting the integrity and reputation of the Championship.

I spoke with a friend who is a rules official and is at St Andrews this week. He says that the greens around the loop were unplayable when they suspended play.

There's a big difference between a social round of golf (play on in all conditions if you so wish) and a major championship with hundreds of millions of people watching worldwide. To let them play on and have penalties galore - through no fault of their own - would have been ridiculous.

Tom,

Perfect response.

It seems a lot of guys who have posted here can't figure out that these players were not out for a casual stroll at TOC, they were competing IMO the greatest championship in golf. 

[Melvyn Morrow]

I know it's The Open and I certainly know what it means with 8 Open Victories to my family name.

Ok not happy with the wind but I wonder if the players would moan if the wind had blown their balls into the holes?

Melvyn

[John Moore II]

I know it's The Open and I certainly know what it means with 8 Open Victories to my family name.

Ok not happy with the wind but I wonder if the players would moan if the wind had blown their balls into the holes?

Melvyn

Depends on the situation. If they replaced their ball and it moved prior to them addressing the ball, sure, they would be fine with the ball going in the hole, it would be counted as holed on the previous stroke. However, if they address the ball and then it moves and falls into the hole, they'd be quite irritated as they would have to replace the ball where it previously rested and take a penalty of one stroke.

[Ulrich Mayring]

I believe a fair question to ask would be why they didn't call off play earlier.

Martin Kaymer as well as Zach Johnson said that they called officials over and showed them that their balls were moving on the green and that it took them a long time to putt because of that. The response of the officials was to put them both on the clock.

Fair enough, Martin Kaymer said after the round, but why apply different standards as soon as Tiger and Rory approach the problematic area?

Response of R&A: because then reports about moving balls were coming in from four different greens, not just one.

Ulrich