Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: TEPaul on September 20, 2004, 12:53:06 PM
-
I just said on another thread that Davis Love's decision to not ask for or even apparently consider relief on #18 (under Rule 24-2) was perhaps one of the most remarkable, integrity laden and "class" moves I've ever seen in professional tournament golf!
There seemed no question at all from anyone who was in the proximity that had Love simply stated he wished to hit a fade from his original lie his left foot would've been right on that immovable obstruction and he would've been granted relief from even the most "conservative interpreter" Rules official and gotten his ball onto the first cut of rough! There's nothing even remotely "unreasonable" about what Love could have asked for ("unreasonable" being the test in the "exception" to Rule 24-2).
But Love said later he didn't and wouldn't have really considered hitting a fade to that left pin position so he didn't even bother to ask for or even consider asking for relief although clearly he was aware he could have! No one but Love could've known that and no one would've even dreamed of questioning him on it anyway!
I've seen a lot of golfers do some things in golf that fall into the category of true integrity but that move of Love's just may have taken the cake!
I'm going to write him or email him and tell him that and I see no reason why we all shouldn't. Things like that are what make golf so fine!
-
Tom -- I agree completely.
-
It's nice to see someone act within the spirit of the rules, rather than just the letter of the law. Doesn't surprise me at all with DLIII, but, then again, I've always been a fan.
Someone out there will probably use this situation as evidence of how he lacks a "killer instinct." :P Or the fact that he halved a match with Clarke, ranked lower than him on the all important golf world rankings, as evidence that he choked.
Golf's a wonderful game, if you let it be so.
-
that was a class move by davis love - all the way
it was also a class move - apparently - by darren clarke to miss that kick-in.
based on darren's response, and hug of davis, i'd say he missed that putt on purpose - which was way cool in my book
-
Tom, I made a similar comment in another thread. Also kudos to Hal Sutton for coming up and telling DLIII that what he did reflected his integrity. The way Hal was lurking as Davis was playing I wasn't sure if he felt that way, but he obviously did.
I don't think that any of the announcers would have acted so honorably. Rolfing said he definitely would have stepped on it. Miller seemed to question why DLIII didn't do something to get relief.
I think Clarke tried on that putt. Remember that the cup wasn't fully decided at that point (although there was little doubt.) But I also think he wasn't terribly upset at missing it. Both of them shot 68 even with the bogies on the last hole. Good golf on that course yesterday.
-
"Someone out there will probably use this situation as evidence of how he lacks a "killer instinct." Or the fact that he halved a match with Clarke, ranked lower than him on the all important golf world rankings, as evidence that he choked."
GeorgeP:
You may say 'someone out there' but I wouldn't be that general. I'd pretty much just say it like it is-----eg. redanman!! ;)
-
"it was also a class move - apparently - by darren clarke to miss that kick-in.
based on darren's response, and hug of davis, i'd say he missed that putt on purpose - which was way cool in my book."
Paul:
I wonder if that's so!? If so that would make that whole thing just that much better and more remarkable. If all that did transpire like that the whole thing is so "class-act" ladened now Clarke may just take it to the extreme and never admit it!! ;)
Apparently Love said to Clarke (they're very good friends) that if he missed that putt on purpose he was going to punch Clarke in the nose!
-
Sorry, Paul Richards, but nobody at that level tries to miss a putt on the 18th green. And it was no kick in. Besides, we all know you're kidding.
At the press conference, when asked about the stance and relief, Davis Love said that "Mark Rolfing must have a very wide stance." Immediately after on The Golf Channel, Mr. Smiling Hawaiian was very defensive about it. For his part, Love at the press conference said that it was no big deal and that no one on the team would have asked for a drop. And by the way, TEP, Love's shot selection and non-request for a drop was based on the lie, which was so hairy he said he couldn't have hit more than a six-iron, and in no way a high fade to the green. I also think that Love's class act was one of many examples of why golf (and these matches) are so cool.
-
tom
that makes the whole thing even better! ;) :)
-
Just didn't cut my tee shot. I hit it kind of straight down the middle.
There's the quote I was hoping to see. I thought when he stepped up to the tee with a 3-wood that cutting it back into the slope was what he had in mind. If he had executed the shot he had in mind, right there on live TV, maybe Johnny Miller would have had to acknowledge that the hole was difficult but entirely playable.
-
"And by the way, TEP, Love's shot selection and non-request for a drop was based on the lie, which was so hairy he said he couldn't have hit more than a six-iron, and in no way a high fade to the green. I also think that Love's class act was one of many examples of why golf (and these matches) are so cool."
Brad:
But that's precisely the point here, isn't it? This is about what Love said later and what he didn't do and didn't ask for. But that in no way whatsoever means Love couldn't have asked for relief under Rule 24-2 and almost without a scintilla of a doubt would have received relief under Rule 24-2!!
I wasn't there around that ball or next to Love but maybe you were. If Love could've gotten a normal high faded 6 iron (forget about that poor lie in rough) to the green and thereby would've had his left foot touching that immovable obstruction I seriously doubt there's a rules official in the entire world who would've denied him relief under the necessary "test' to the "exception" to Rule 24-2 that that stance and proposed play was "unnecessarily abnormal" OR "unnreasonable", particularly at a time like that when a golfer just may reasonably try a really high risk play (such as on the 18th hole of an "all square match" in the Ryder Cup from even a poor lie in the rough)!
Furthermore, the exception to relief under Rule 24-2 talks about (a) interference to a player making a stroke by something other than the immovable obstruction in question, OR (very important) (b) interference by an immovable obstruction would occur only through use of an unnecessarily abnormal STANCE, swing or direction of play.
In Love's situation and in my officiating experience, simply a poor lie in rough like the one he had is not considered to be "interference" to a player making a "normal STROKE" and there could be nothing "unnecessarily abnormal" about Love taking a six iron from that poor lie in an attempt to hit a high faded 6 iron, again, particularly in a situation like that.
I had a discussion and debate on this kind of rules point (and rules decision) with one of our GOLFCLUBATLAS contributors over on that Leith Rules website about how most all really good rules officials take the entire situation at hand into consideration. Perhaps amazingly to some taking the entire situation at hand into consideration also means making some subjective judgements about the player in question and his particular capabilities (in this sense not all rules decisions regarding all levels of players may end up being the same!).
In my opinion, a really competent rules official in that situation with Love (if asked by Love for 24-2 relief would NOT consider what someone like Brad Klein or Tom Paul was or wasn't capable of in that specific situation--vis-a-vis what's "unnreasonable" or an abnormal STANCE, swing and direction of play") he would consder what Davis Love 3rd was capable of or not in determining what constituted an "unnecessarily abnormal STANCE, swing and direction of play and if it was clearly unnreasonable for him (Love and not Klein or Paul) to make a stroke because of intereference by anything other than the immovable obstruction!
Most of those officials were probably tour pro officials and God knows they understand from experience that some of these players (Wood's et al) are more than capable of hitting shots that some of us may think unnreasonable or abnormal! And a really good rules official will reflect that reality in the on-course rules decisions they make!
-
I see no reason for over-emphasizing being honest. Sure it is great to see the integrity held-up, but making too big a deal about it, only shows how rare it is. What does that say about all the other golfers in this world? Dan King, knows!
-
What does that say about all the other golfers in this world?
Adam
99+% of the golfers in the world wouldn't even have a clue what this conversation was about. :(
-
Adam Clayman:
I've done about 15 years of rules officiating now on a pretty good level and believe me what Love did on #18 and the reasons he did it are rare! What does that say about most all golfers, in this case apparently some very experienced professional golfers (particularly those announcers some of which have won OPENS)? It says it's become almost completely common practice to very consciously use the letter of the Rules of Golf and not the spirit of them. What Love did yesterday frankly I've absolutely never seen before and frankly never even thought of. Not only was what Love did a rare example of integrity to play by the spirit of the game and not just the letter of the Rules of the game but it was frankly an education in Rules application to me!
-
Bravo to Davis -- although:
"You might as well praise me for not robbing a bank."
-- Robert Tyre Jones, Jr.
-
Dan:
Honestly, maybe I saw something that no one else did yesterday or maybe I'm wrong or making too much of this but the decision Love made on #18 and particularly the reasons why doesn't even fall into the same zip code as that famous quote by Bobby Jones.
This isn't even remotely about whether Love would've been cheating in some way ('robbing a bank') if he'd asked for Rule 24-2 relief and been granted it. If that'd happened there wouldn't be a person in the world viewing that situation who would've thought a thing of it. Asking for relief under Rule 24-2 in a situation like Love's yesterday and establishing the reason for it by taking perhaps a bit of a fading stance is something everyone I've ever seen does and would do. To be honest, in years of golf and also years of officiating I've virtually never seen any player do what Love did for the specific reasons he did it! And in that way this incident just may be not only one of the most impressive I've ever seen but also one of the most educational. What Love apparently did yesterday is basically to first and foremost be true to himself! There's no one else who could've possibly understood the reason Davis Love didn't ask for relief he clearly would've gotten except Davis Love himself!
-
"The rules of golf are there to protect you, not for you to gain by them."
Harvey Penick
-
Tom- I thought the rule states that the player must line-up with the intended shot.
I haven't officiated, but I've seen regular folk (non-pro or highly ranked amateurs) try to use their cunning, to get a drop not entitled to. I've seen pros knock leaves off of trees, with practice swings, and not call a penalty on themselves. Likey they didn't even know they violated a rule.
I agree it was great that Davis golfed under the rules and didn't try to manufacture a stance that would've given him the preferred lie, but Dan Kelly's quote illustrates the proper level of accolade.
-
Sorry to rain on the ethics/gentleman's game thread here, but I'd much rather be talking about what a winner DLIII is. Unfortunately, like many of the rest of the Tour, he is a checkbook guy. Sure, the rainbow came out at Winged Foot and he won the least significant major. Sure he had that great final round at the Players a couple years back where the rest of the field folded like a pup tent collection and sure, he's won at Hilton Head a bunch of times, but Love strikes me as the poster child for why we fail at the Ryder Cup. Gentleman or not, he just ain't a grinder and you need to be a grinder at the Ryder Cup.
-
And I take the oppostive view. I'd rather our US players be known as honest sportsmen first, and winners second.
-
And I take the oppostive view. I'd rather our US players be known as honest sportsmen first, and winners second.
Rich,
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.
-
Tom, I agree with everything you have said here. Davis was the only person who would have known that there was no way he would have played the shot that would have given him relief and yet he still chose not to do it. It would have been entirely reasonable for him to ask and based on what I've read any official would have given him relief. But he knew it "wasn't right" not that it "wasn't allowed" and as such he made the personal choice not to ask. That is admirable. Bobby Jones' quote came after he called a penalty on himself that no one else had seen. That is definitely different in that what he had done wasn't allowed and to not call it also isn't allowed.
Without anyone asking he met the standard of "if the obstruction wasn't there would you try to hit that shot" and answered that no he wouldn't so he shouldn't take relief. I have asked that question of players in the past and in more than one case the player has agreed that he wouldn't try that, but if he says he would and it is reasonable you would give him relief. In this case I doubt any official would even ask because it was so obvious that he wasn't doing anything unusual, but he still took the high road. That is admirable in my opinion.
-
But it IS a Gentleman's game, isn't it? I'd rather be a fan of a DLIII or that LPGA pro who called 18-2 on herself at the LPGA championship in 2003 when only she saw her ball move than a fan of a "grinder" who uses a more "advantageous" interpreation of the rules....
-
Let's put it this way -- Pete Rose still has millions of fans. And Rose and DLIII wouldn't understand each other if they lived to be a million.
-
Rick,
A hearty "Amen" to your posts!
-
"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! ;)
-
Rick
You hit the nail on the head there.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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?
-
No
-
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.
-
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!
-
Tom
Of course it's similar...just depends on what the official thought was a "reasonable" stance.
-
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.
-
>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?
-
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.
-
>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
-
"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!
-
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.
;D
TH
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
;D
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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!
-
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! ;)
-
Frost would have looked even more ridiculous if he hadn't attempted to play that shot, after whining for 10 minutes on TV. He wasn't cheating, but he was definitely pushing too hard for a dodgy ruling.
Tom
I'm glad Davis didn't try and fudge his stance to get the relief. I just don't think he should be overly praised for not doing the wrong thing!
-
"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:
If that were true that's a case where two wrongs add up to two wrongs and nothing less. I do realize that all good rules officials strive in theory for equity in their decision making but that kind of thing, if actually true, is shameful officiating in my book!
-
Honestly, maybe I saw something that no one else did yesterday or maybe I'm wrong or making too much of this but the decision Love made on #18 and particularly the reasons why doesn't even fall into the same zip code as that famous quote by Bobby Jones.
This isn't even remotely about whether Love would've been cheating in some way ('robbing a bank') if he'd asked for Rule 24-2 relief and been granted it.
Tom I --
I take Mr. Jones's statement more broadly than you do, I guess.
I think Mr. Jones was saying: Don't praise me for playing within the rules -- within the letter and the spirit of the rules -- because a man with integrity must play within the letter and the spirit of the rules, or he has no integrity.
As I said: Bravo to Mr. Love. This incident says something very complimentary about him. It says he is a man of integrity -- at least on the golf course. (I mean to imply nothing about him off the golf course -- where I know nothing about him.)
The fact that some find his display of integrity remarkable says something very uncomplimentary about our times -- does it not?
-
Now is probably as good a time as any to ask the contributors to GOLFCLUBATLAS.com if they actually think that this apparently common modus operandi of players and tournament players (since they're really the only ones who play tournament golf with real rules officials) are guilty of cheating if they try to goad rules officials into such things as giving them relief under very questionable rules circumstances?
I, for one, don't in any way think that's cheating on the part of tournament players but it is a bad and unfortunate practice that just seems to be so much part of the game these days (and perhaps for many years).
What that type of thing is to me is simply a true lack of even understanding the spirit that lies behind the Rules of Golf. Unfortunately, for as long as I can remember the Rules of Golf give a player immunity for a mistake made in his favor by a rules officials and even more unfortunately too many really good tournament players not only understand that but actually relie on the occasional prospect of that!
Do you ever wonder why so many tournament players call for rules officials in relief situations when it's almost crystal clear what the proper procedure is? Sure, the ultra cautious tournament player may call for a rules official so he doesn't make a mistake on his own and thereby get penalized for it but the over-use of Rules officials is also far more insidious than that, I'm afraid.
But is it cheating? Not in my book. It's simply misunderstanding or abusing the spirit (but not the letter) behind the Rules of Golf. As I'm sure everyone on here knows the presumption in the actual Rules of Golf is that every player will play honorably. The actual rules of golf rarely if ever mention the idea of and certainly not the act of cheating.
-
The key of the call was that if Davis had taken a drop, he would have been in the light rough instead of dead in the rough which would have reduced the value of Darren's drive,
the cup was basically lost at that point, but imagine last hole of the US Open... If the guy take a drop in the light rough, hit the ball on the green, two putts and a one stroke win, would it be fair...
-
I have always rooted for DLIII and this reinforced that. However, I do wish he had a better reputation as a "closer."
-
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! ;)
TEP: as I said in that post, we all have our likes and dislikes. Of course I've never met the man (as I gather you have) and perhaps if I did my attitude would change. So taking into account that all I know is what I see in TV, well... to me he personfies the words "goober" and "dweeb." He also just seems so uptight, white-bread, geeky, walks like he has a stick up his butt... well you can see where I'm going. Beyond that, one of my best golf buddies holds him as a life hero, so that makes me automatically dislike the guy. Love, that is.
So to each his own... hey, where's the fun if we always disagree.
BTW, thank the lord but I work in an office. If I actually worked in a plant making products, we'd likely have a lot more product liability cases to deal with.
;D
In any case I am prepared to give the tight-ass chokemaster full credit for being a good egg about the rules here. Good on you, Davis. Now just take some anti-geek classes and learn how to walk.
;D ;D ;D
-
Huck -
You oughta read DLIII's book Every Shot I Take - a quick and heartwarming read.
Kind of funny, someone on this site thinking someone else is a geek.... :)
-
In any case I am prepared to give the tight-ass chokemaster full credit for being a good egg about the rules here. Good on you, Davis. Now just take some anti-geek classes and learn how to walk.
;D ;D ;D
Spoken like someone who has the same amount of major titles as DLIII ;) ;) ;)
-
Huckster,
Having spent four days in California last week, I am astonished that anyone residing there would chose to judge a person by their appearance. In such a contest Rest Of World would undoubtedly win 10 and 8 ;)
Kindest regards,
Mike
-
"Tom
I'm glad Davis didn't try and fudge his stance to get the relief. I just don't think he should be overly praised for not doing the wrong thing!"
PaulT:
Did you actually see that situation with Love yesterday? If so I still think you're pretty much misunderstanding this situation. There appeared no way on earth if Love had asked for relief from that immovable obstruction yesterday and demonstrated his reason for asking with what may not have even been recognized to be a "fade stance" he would have gotten it from any competent rules official in the world. He basically wouldn't have "fudged" (as you say) anything, and he most definitely would have not been just NOT doing the wrong thing, as you say.
Apparently Love's foot with the swing he says he intended to take (probably a SW blast out of that poor lie) was never more than one inch from that immovable obstruction (at least that's the way all the people there who reported it reported the facts as I heard them.
Again, I'd ask you to cite me another example of a tournament player doing what he did yesterday. I don't think you can. I've been officiating and playing tournament golf for a long time and I can honestly say his specific reasoning was an education to me. I've just never seen anything exactly like that. I also feel that all those who were there on the spot--including a lot of seasoned tournament players felt the same thing. My recollection of watching that situation was that at first no one could figure out what he was doing by doing nothing to even ask about relief.
-
"the cup was basically lost at that point, but imagine last hole of the US Open... If the guy take a drop in the light rough, hit the ball on the green, two putts and a one stroke win, would it be fair... "
Phillipe:
Of course that would've been fair if Love legitimately established "interference" by an immovable obstruction under the letter of Rule 24-2! That's why Rule 24 is in the Rule book and it make no distinction whatsoever between fairway, first cut rough, deep rough or much of anythng else except a few known "exceptions" all found within the Rules.
But what you're saying about even a legitimate drop somehow minimizing the effect of Darren Clarke's drive is a remarkable thing to say nonetheless. That very thing is exactly what C.B. Macdonald was so fixated on when he tried so hard before 1905 to get the USGA and American golf to understand and accept what he called the "Spirit of St. Andrews" when the United States was writing rules under the auspices of the young USGA.
Macdonald's point was that even in St Andrews many of the golfers didn't really even understand their own really minimal Rules of Golf that well--but they did understand that the "Spirit of St Andrews" sort of morally required any player to never take advantage of his opponent EVEN IF he was somehow LEGITIMATELY able to do so under the existing Rules of Golf. The overriding idea was to want to best the very best your opponent could throw at you and never to use the rules, even if legitmately, to take some advantage of your opponent to do so.
That "Spirit of St Andrews" never really got to these shores to the eventual dismay of Macdonald and it seems not that many really understand exactly what it was. It seems you do though---and perhaps Love did too in some way yesterday.
But if he'd been granted relief yesterday in what seemed to be clear relief would it have been fair and within the letter of the Rules of Golf? Definitely! And I'm pretty sure both Love AND Clarke understood that!
-
"TEP: as I said in that post, we all have our likes and dislikes. Of course I've never met the man (as I gather you have) and perhaps if I did my attitude would change. So taking into account that all I know is what I see in TV, well... to me he personfies the words "goober" and "dweeb." He also just seems so uptight, white-bread, geeky, walks like he has a stick up his butt... well you can see where I'm going. Beyond that, one of my best golf buddies holds him as a life hero, so that makes me automatically dislike the guy. Love, that is."
TomH:
I know exactly what you mean by all that. Davis Love and his preceived "presonae" has always been that way with most everyone and certainly including those who never actually met or known the guy. In my opinion, that's all simply because of the way he looks the way he walks and other stuff like that.
For some odd reason Love has always had that sort of pouty or glum look to his face but that really is just the way his face is and not the way he is. It's pretty startling really to find that he's nothing at all like that. He also has about size 15 feet and a very thin upper body for his size and he's always padded along like a big duck that's always made him seem sort of goofy or geeky to those who don't know anything else about him.
But I think when you see him play and get to know him all that changes instantly. It's no secret he's always been one of the most popular and respected guys on the tour and with people who know him. And, I'm not sure how old you are TomH or whether you remember when and how Love hit the golf world's attention. He was considered to be a true hybrid, perhaps a sign of the distance future he was soooo long with everything. After a year or two on the tour he toned that way down and started to be successful. I saw Love when he was a sophmore in college and his length was positively shocking! Matter of fact, the other day I ran into the great old caddie at Merion who caddied for Love the first time he came to Merion (first time he came to Philadelphia actually) and shot a 64. He said after the round he told Love; "Young man basically you've got a problem--you hit the ball waaay too far!"
I'm not sure if you ever knew this either but apparently in the teaching profession his Dad was considered to be perhaps one of the true geniuses on the golf swing.
-
"The fact that some find his display of integrity remarkable says something very uncomplimentary about our times -- does it not?:
Dan:
No, I don't think so. I think most on here seem to think all Love did was basically just not do something that might have been in some way questionable but in my opinion, it wasn't that at all.
I kind of hate to admit this because I've been around a long time but until yesterday I really didn't even think it was possible for a golfer to have thought of what Love did and I dare say almost everyone there never did either. They even teach you in rules school to really understand the technicalities of the rules because in the end all it can do is help you. Love could've legitimately done that yestereday--and that's what I think so many on here are failing to understand. But he didn't and again, what he did was as much of an education to me as anything else.
Maybe I just have a very different opinion of what constitutes "clearly unreasonable" and "an abnormal stance and swing" within the technicalities of the Rules of Golf than some of the others on here.
-
My God, redanman, by all rights and tenets of decency and good taste after all the ridiculous things you've said about Davis Love in the past you should just completely recuse yourself from ever saying a word on this thread. You actually think you might be hard on Davis Love because he or his golf game in some ways reminds you of yourself?? This I really can't take! I just knew there was some out of control "Walter Mittyism" going on on the website! ;)
-
I'm not going to accept that redanman. You aren't getting off the hook until you declare your unconditional love for Davis Love everyday for a month and swear you'll never again play golf with that psychopath from the West Thomas Clorox Huckaby.
And now all that's left to say is---Goodnight Mrs Callabash, wherever you are!
-
TEP:
I love you too, man. And not to worry - redanman and I have played exactly one round together the entire decade or so we've now known of each other in this electronic way. ;D
As for Mr. Love the third, well... I do appreciate the insight in your post, though none of that is new to me. I am 42 years old and thus old enough to be all too familiar with my contemporary there.
And he remains a geek, dweeb, goober and all-around dork. I hope you saw the recent golf channel news feature where they showed him leading a motorcycle rally... never has anyone done such a great impersonation of PeeWee Herman. I actually felt kinda sad for him, in a "Jesse Palmer ruining my chance of ever being cool via a TV appearance" way.
But he also remains cool about the rules. And his Dad was a teaching genius.
TH
ps - please understand I am just having fun with this. DLIII has as much effect on my life as does Donovan McNabb.
pss to George P - touche!
-
Mike H.:
Actually, George's retort touches on why I do have such disdain for Davis Love III. See, I've been playing golf since I was 8. Thus I've been fighting the geek image basically my whole life. Oh, the arguments between me and my brother, who considers golf not to be a sport... Anyway, no matter how hard I ever tried to convince him of the true coolness of the sport, whereas Tom Kite hurt my argument, the be all and end-all argument killer has always been when he uttered these words:
Davis Love the third.
I never have come up with a retort.
So help me out here. Traditionally I've just punted and said, well, I guess you're right. Golf is geeky and I am a geek. What should I say in the face of this overwhelming evidence?
;D
-
Tom P
If Davis Love would have claimed that he needed to take a stance to fade a shot from that lie then he most certainly would have been fudging his stance.
If there are a several "reasonable" options for a player and he claims to that the only "reasonable" stance will give him relief, then in IMO he's doing the wrong thing.
-
Tom P
If Davis Love would have claimed that he needed to take a stance to fade a shot from that lie then he most certainly would have been fudging his stance.
If there are a several "reasonable" options for a player and he claims to that the only "reasonable" stance will give him relief, then in IMO he's doing the wrong thing.
Actually, I think all DLIII would have had to do would have been to stand a couple of inches farther from the ball. Rolfing said a wider stance. In either case, I don't think the only way to get relief would have been a fade stance for a shot he wasn't going to play anyway.
-
I agree that DLIII did the right thing, given that his lie was such that it was impossible (even for him) to hit the requisite high fade onto the green. However.....
What if the lie had been such that it was possible but not prudent to hit that high fade (let's say a 2% chance of success)? Could Love (or anyone) argue that because the shot was possible, he MIGHT choose to take it (depending on his propensity for risk), and thus should be offerred relief? Or does the player have to calculate whether or not he WOULD choose that riskier shot (if no relief were possible) in order to be given relief?
It would seem to me that relief should be available if a certain shot is possible, regardless of whether or not it is prudent. Otherwise you get into the slippery slope of trying to incorporate a player's psyche into a Decision. But, I'm not sure.
Any thoughts?
-
Huckster-Since you seem to be in a soul searching forgiving mode, perhaps you could investigate why you can give a golf course a pass, on critique. But, one of the world's best ball strikers gets the scrutiny of a pathologist. (or proctologist in this case)
Could you e'splain this apparent incongruency?
-
Adam:
You assume I give all golf courses a pass on critique, which is far from true. I just tend to choose to try and find the good rather than highlight the bad. So if you rephrase your question to ask why I don't do the same re DLIII, well, the answer is easy and is contained in one of my prior posts.
He's the absolute life-hero of one of a good golfing bud, one with whom I exchange constant crap back and forth and one with whom I'd sooner end it all than agree on any issue pertaining to this great game, just out of principle. Once that hero status was established, it was absolutely certain that any flaws DLIII was perceived to possess would be highlighted with laser-intensity.
Make sense?
;D
And BTW, I concur that he is one hell of a ball-striker, one of the best. He's still a dork. ;D
-
Tom, with that argument, I cannot fight. Darn!
Other than the standard, who'd you wanna be? Mike Jordan or Bill Gates? Geek or Jock?
The answer should be painfully obvious. Geekdom is it.
-
That surely is obvious. I'll take Jordan all day over Gates. It's not like I'd be suffering for money as MJ, I'd be as good a golfer and love the sport as much as I do as Tom Huckaby, and I don't think I'd mind being the all-time best at a sport played world-wide. There are plenty of great businessmen and plenty of rich people. There is only one MJ. And the fact he's a golf nut seals the deal.
Now change it to someone who really has contributed to bettering the world in a very meaningful way - oh, I'm thinking Jonas Salk, Isaac Newton, Gandhi - and give me their "geekiness" any time, even over MJ, even giving up this great game.
Creation of software and personal wealth do not overly impress me. Gates with his foundation has done more to impress me than anything Microsoft has done. So if you make it Gates and many other people, I might go for the geek.
But against MJ? Forget it.
But talk about going out into left-field... I doubt I've ever gotten so far from golf course architecture here. My bad. Act of contrition to follow.
;D
-
Huck,
If you had to choose between Paul McCartney and MJ...would the fact that the ex-Beetle sleeps with a peg leg chick seal the deal.....that has to be cool..
-
Huck,
If you had to choose between Paul McCartney and MJ...would the fact that the ex-Beetle sleeps with a peg leg chick seal the deal.....that has to be cool..
I'm laughing out loud in Georgia...
-
;D ;D ;D
LOL here as well.
And yes, that would add to the coolness. And in addition to the very cool leglessness, the woman is rather hot from what I recall.
;D
-
Rich:
Your post #73 is a very good one and most appropriate at that point in this thread. There comes a time in a thread like this when something like that (your excellent questions) should be pinned down simply so the contributors on here won't be all over the place on that specifiic subject. There's a big difference, in my opinion, in the world of golf rules and golf rules application between the way it is and should be and the way too many golfer's think it should be (but isn't). This subject and situation with Love very well may fall somewhere in the cracks (of understanding) of the actual Rules of Golf between the technical way things are and have become (rules application and decisions on-course) and the fundamental spirit behind the Rules of Golf (their Principles, if you will)!
Your post asks excellent and appropriate questions and I certainly do have some thoughts on those questions. But first, allow me to do a bit of rules research on this subject.
-
TEP: what, you don't enjoy the speculation on why I don't like Davis Love?
Just remember: you asked.
And also, none of this - including your initial post starting this topic - has anything to do with golf course architecture.
Feistily,
TH
;D ;D ;D
ps - I like Rich's question also, and look forward to your answer. For some reason this arcane rules stuff does interest me.
-
"TEP: what, you don't enjoy the speculation on why I don't like Davis Love?"
TomH:
Not at all---I'm very much enjoying the speculation on why you don't like Davis Love. I very much enjoy seeing someone go through deep and revelatory self-analysis, aided by a number of tough and painful questions from your fellow GOLFCLUBATLAS.com contributors and brethren! :)
This apparently all boils down to a deep-seated "geek", "dweeb" or “goober” complex on your part going way back to when little Tom Huckaby was just barely out of diapers. There’s clearly much family and peer dynamics going on here you’ve never been able to come to terms with. Now’s your chance and I’m enjoying all this immensely, not the least reason being you will be a better man for it someday (who knows we may even be able to make it possible for you to pick up 40-50 yards on your tee shots through this type of psychological cleansing!).
One thing is certain, though, if you could stand next to Davis Love and watch him hit a golf ball, there’s little question in my mind your “geek”, “dweeb” and “goober” opinion of him would change immensely and instantly and forever.
I’m very hopeful for you TomH! Redanman is another question and another problem altogether. His complexes, clearly reflected in his hatred of Davis Love 3rd, not to mention Tiger Woods just might cast new meaning on the term “deep-seated’! I’ll do my very best to help you both but if I’m unable I’m afraid these matters may need the attentions of one Dr Katz!
-
TEP:
Great stuff. Well done. ;D
Just one problem with the substance. I HAVE stood next to DLIII and watched him hit the ball - in fact several times - each at the AT&T at Pebble Beach. I came away very impressed with him as a golfer. But I also came away with very great confirmation of my assessment of him as a geek and a dork and a dweeb.
But you're right, it likely is just me!
;D
-
It is a sad commentary on the state of professional golf that so much praise is heaped on Davis Love III for following the rules of golf.
-
I believe I agree with you rg. It does appear to be a rather sad commentary on the state of professional golf. It may be a bit of a sad commentary as well on the state of the application these days of the Rules of Golf. It may not even be a sad commentary of the state of professional golfers to follow the rules of golf but to understand the fundamental reasoning and principles (re "spirit") behind the Rules of Golf! It probably shouldn't be lost on any of us that it appeared perhaps no one on that scene, including a number of high level professional golfers and professional golf commentators (formerly top-flight professional golfers!) seemed to understand in the slightest what Love was actually doing or why!
-
Tom Huckaby,
As a very young man, like you, I could look upon golfers as dweebs, dorks (words I had never heard of by the way) or poufters. Coming from playing contact sports with balls, bats and gloves it seemed a sissy sort of passtime, until I saw one of the misfits, with a languid stroke hit a small white ball a mile. I tried, failed miserably to get halfway to his ball and realized that he wasn't such a dork after all.
This could be the same with you if you tried to emulate Mr. Love. He may walk as though he has a carrot up his fundamental orifice, but you must admit he has a much better athlectic bearing than your good self.
DL111 gives a clinic at MPCC every year for The Boys and Girls Club of the Monterey Penisula prior to the AT&T. Seeing the arc and length of his shots sure doesn't look dorky to me. He also set up a scholarship program out here for the kids. All in all he is a wonderful young man...... who misses too many short putts in the big ones.
-
Bob:
I was wondering if you would see this, and kinda hoping you wouldn't. I am suitably chastised. I am REALLY chastised by your assessment that DLIII has a more athletic bearing that me. Of course it's true, but the truth never hurt more.
;D ;D ;D
BTW, I have no doubt DLIII is a good egg - you have mentioned his involvement in your Boys & Girls Club event before and that alone puts him on the good side. This recent rules issue is just more on the positive side.
But remember how it goes with shit-giving amongst friends... I'd sooner die than admit anything good about my friend's hero. God I hope HE never reads this here....
TH
-
I admire DL III's world-class ability to hit the ball. His handling of the family crisis involving the malfeasance and suicide of his brother-in-law was most honorable and reaffirming of what is good. No doubt, he is a fine family man and individual.
That so much has been made of his decision to play the ball as it lies in conformance with the rules, perhaps it would all have been a mere footnote or example in a rules segment had the US team played to its potential. There were not many good things to say about how the US team went about the matches.
Among serious golfers, there is nothing special about abiding by the rules. That is the expectation, and I have seen any number of examples of that in regular Sunday play. Perhaps it is a phenomenom for the media where a story regardless of its substance is the key.
If one believes that to whom much is given, much is expected, Davis's career lacks considerable luster. In my opinion, he exemplifies what is wrong with pro golf in the US- that complacency and comfort has been engendered by the vast sums of prize, appearance, and endorsement money. The European players seem to be more into the matches, more cognizant and appreciative of the fans, and much closer together than their US counterparts. Sergio's Nathaniel Crosby like behavior notwithstanding, who would you rather team up with if your life depended on it, him or Davis? I would also wager that Sergio would not have taken a drop on 18 either, though perhaps he may have been more conflicted.
-
Sergio's Nathaniel Crosby like behavior notwithstanding, who would you rather team up with if your life depended on it, him or Davis? I would also wager that Sergio would not have taken a drop on 18 either, though perhaps he may have been more conflicted.
That's a hell of a good question, Lou - and also came up in discussions with my buddies. I postulated that Sergio just may well be the perfect partner - damn good player (but that's a given amongst these guys) but also just seems to have the knack for putting his partners at ease, and thus bringing out their best. Did you notice all the smiling and laughing going on along with the emotional outbursts? Hell, it seems like you just can't help but LIKE the guy if he's your partner, and that really does have to help.
I can also see why he puts off opponents also though... but hell, that might just help you win a hole or two also. If the opponents are thinking about how a guy is pissing them off, they can't be as focused on their own games.
Of course I could also be all wet about all of this.
As for whether Sergio would have taken the drop that DLIII did not, I'm with you 100%. He might have CONSIDERED it, but he wouldn't have done it.
I used to really dislike Sergio also... just out of pro-American sentiment and distaste for how painfully slow he used to be. But he really has won me over, to the extent that I now root for him big-time.
[ASIDE TO TOM PAUL - sorry once again for taking this on a tangent away from the rules discussion. But this is such an interesting question, I felt it had to be addressed. It might be worth a separate thread. We'll see if anyone else finds this interesting. I sure do.]
TH
-
Lou Duran,
That's a pretty tough post! Love has missed some crucial short putts, as Bob Huntley says, and they could have made his career much different. I don't think that is a sign of complacency, though. In his case, I think that he has cared too much, if anything.
I also find it interesting that you compare him to Garcia, who is in the process of amassing a Ryder Cup record that may be unsurpassed; that's a tough standard in itself. To go further and downgrade Love's actions because of what you think Garcia MIGHT have done in the same circumstance is a much tougher standard in that it has NO basis in reality! Who could meet that measure?
-
Bob Huntley said to Tom Huckaby;
"This could be the same with you if you tried to emulate Mr. Love. He may walk as though he has a carrot up his fundamental orifice, but you must admit he has a much better athlectic bearing than your good self."
BobH, my good man, have you any idea what that remark may have done or may do to Thomas Clorox Huckaby? The poor fellow apparently has a deep-seated and potentially debilitating "geek", "dweeb" or "goober" complex and unfortunately Davis Love's look, walk, facial expression and most everything else about him represents what Tom Huckably has apparently always felt was God's finest hour in the creation of the "geek", "dweeb" and "goober". Now you're telling Huckaby, a man who's apparently your friend that Love's general physiognomy is far more athletic than Huckaby's??
This will positively kill Huckaby and set his self-image back to Square One (which very well may be that time when he first tactilely became aware of this own bodily parts----apparently to his never ending horror, I might add). Huckaby may now not be able to hit a drive further than Love can hit a long lag putt. Are you prepared to take the consequences for what you may have done to Huckaby with that remark?
I was trying to help Huckably but, you, his friend, must try to help me help him! That remark is definitely not the way to do that!
-
BobH:
I've always been aware that Tom Huckaby is capable of taking a thread to the outside edge of the spectrum of "off topic" but this is ridiculous. We were talking about an honorable thing that Love did golf rules-wise in the Ryder Cup Matches and Huckaby has single-handedly taken this subject, in less than a page, into the realm of geeks and goobers and the horrifying and frightening depths of "dweeb complexes".
-
BobH:
I've always been aware that Tom Huckaby is capable of taking a thread to the outside edge of the spectrum of "off topic" but this is ridiculous. We were talking about an honorable thing that Love did golf rules-wise in the Ryder Cup Matches and Huckaby has single-handedly taken this subject, in less than a page, into the realm of geeks and goobers and the horrifying and frightening depths of "dweeb complexes".
I do believe this is a new low, even for me. Sorry man. But again, hey, you asked WHY I disliked the goober. You could have just let my comment be - I even gave the dork full credit for his honorable actions at the Ryder Cup - but you had to go and ask why.
So blame thyself, oh great one.
;D
As for my self-image, not to worry. I've sure been called worse things than less athletic than Dweeby Love. I'll live. Remember my name rhymes with a lot of unflattering things.
Now back to your very interesting - but not related to golf course architecture in any way - topic.
;D ;D ;D
BTW, you know what's even better than being taken to task by Mr. Huntley here? Having it happen in person. The civility by which the admonitions are rendered just underscore one's screwing up. I highly recommend it, for self-reflection.
;D ;D ;D
-
AGC,
I don't mean to be too tough on Davis. Perhaps comfort and complaceny have nothing to do with it. Maybe the issue is confidence and mental toughness. The bottom line is that his pedigree, physical prowess and ability to hit the ball appear to exceed his accomplishments. Putting may be part of it, but I've seen him make all sorts of putts at times which leads me to believe that it is not a mechanical or technical issue.
I am not a psychiatrist, and God knows that Davis is exponetially better and tougher than me. But among his peers- world class players competing in the majors and cups- does he pass mustard? Yes, he is a wonderful player and a good sport. We should expect the latter with little discussion, and hope that he reaches his potential in the former.
I will say that if I saw either Davis or Sergio at a bar, based on their demeanor on the course, I would feel uncomfortable encroaching on Davis's space, but would gladly buy Sergio a beer. Like Seve, there is an intangible with Sergio that creates infectious excitement. Of course, that is much easier done when playing well, but it sure was lacking in most of our leading boys. Is making a big deal about Davis following the rules just a clear example of damnation by benign praise?
-
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.
That is correct-- He did it to show up the official, and talking with an official who was there they thought the shot was crazy because he basically was required to aim out of bounds to hit that shot with that stance (while a "normal stance" would have given him the same shot without the risk)--
-
As for whether Sergio would have taken the drop that DLIII did not, I'm with you 100%. He might have CONSIDERED it, but he wouldn't have done it.
I wonder if Seve would have argued for relief?
Of course, one could argue that he wouldn't have been that close to the fairway ...
Or that he is the one golfer that could have a hit a high, cutting, draw, fade to that hole location, talking to the ball in spanish all along ...
-
WHOA! Those are great questions... Of course I have no doubt that Seve always was honorable with the rules, certain past Ryder Cup sneezes and other noises notwithstanding... But I wonder if competition might exceed honor for him there, and you're right, if he just might think of that as the "normal" shot and thus justifiably take relief... I mean justifiably in that he could take it with full respect for intent...
VERY interesting questions. Who knows.
And this takes nothing away from Pouffter Love, btw.
;D ;D
-
But remember how it goes with shit-giving amongst friends... I'd sooner die than admit anything good about my friend's hero. God I hope HE never reads this here....
TH
Hope does not spring eternal. So are sooo busted, my friend !
;D
-
God freakin' dammit.
OK, you have to tell me - who ratted me out?
Oh well, at least this got you to post here.
:-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
-
It's your own fault for telling me about this board years ago. No one to blame but yourself.
I don't read everything here, maybe 20% of the threads. And you know that a DLIII topic will definately get my attention.
Next time, go after him in a "Why I love links golf" thread, you're probably safe from my eyes there. 8)
-
It's a shame DL III can't invite Mr. Huckaby to ride on the back of his chopper as they go off for the first day of turkey hunting season - I think the dweeb remarks would end forever right then and there. ;)
-
Like Seve, there is an intangible with Sergio that creates infectious excitement. Of course, that is much easier done when playing well, but it sure was lacking in most of our leading boys. Is making a big deal about Davis following the rules just a clear example of damnation by benign praise?
Lou -- No, not when you offer the alternative of Seve Ballesteros. Seve was indeed a wonderful player and a compelling character, but is there anyone on this board that truly believes Seve would NOT have asked for relief in Love's situation?
Yes, it's unfair to judge a player by what he might or might not do in a hypothetical situation, but I think the point here is that Seve earned his reputation as the ultimate gamesman. He was as exciting as Love is dull, and as wily as Love is straightforward.
The guy you'd rather have a beer with is not necessarily the guy you'd expect to always uphold the spirit of the rules. Maybe that lonely guy in the corner deserves a little more respect.
-
Well, Seve and Sergio might have asked for relief if in the situation Love found himself, but, based on his actions at the Masters, it is a certainty that Ernie Els would have.
-
It's a shame DL III can't invite Mr. Huckaby to ride on the back of his chopper as they go off for the first day of turkey hunting season - I think the dweeb remarks would end forever right then and there. ;)
I doubt it. But it's likely he'd shoot me. But maybe that's what you mean by the remarks ending forever?
;D
-
You're damn straight he'd shoot you! I can just see the turkey hunt now!
BAAAABOOOOM goes Davis's 8 gauge shot gun (not a gun for geeks, BTW!).
Davis: "Ah, gee I thought that (Huckaby) was a turkey---he sure looked like turkey, walked like a turkey and talked like a turkey. Are you sure that guy's not a turkey?"
-
You're damn straight he'd shoot you! I can just see the turkey hunt now!
BAAAABOOOOM goes Davis's 8 gauge shot gun (not a gun for geeks, BTW!).
Davis: "Ah, gee I thought that (Huckaby) was a turkey---he sure looked like turkey, walked like a turkey and talked like a turkey. Are you sure that guy's not a turkey?"
Whoa there pardner, how far was Davis' shot? If it was like 4 or 5 feet away and under the extreme pressure of being with America's Guest, he probably would have missed ... ;)
-
Maybe we can get Davis to forget the whole unfortunate incident?
I'd begin offering to change your internet handle to Turkaby, for eternity. To start.
-
Maybe we can get Davis to forget the whole unfortunate incident?
I'd begin offering to change your internet handle to Turkaby, for eternity. To start.
Yeah right. I'll do that if you take the CL off your last name and add a G.
;D ;D
-
Yeah right. I'll do that if you take the CL off your last name and add a G.
Sir Turkeyaby, I was not the one who foolishly held-on to a contrairian belief, then state it in public, because of someone else's love for Love.
Plus, I'm secure in my happy go lucky existence, to bear said monicker, if I had publicly called him that list of non-deplumes you did, and if he agreed that he wouldn't shoot me. ;D
-
Rick,
I did not bring up Seve in the context of Davis's decision not to take a drop that he was NOT entitled to. I too would speculate that if Seve was in Davis's shoes, that he would have argued for a drop, particularly if he believed that he could execute the shot from the stance that he would have to take in order to receive relief under the rules.
My primary point was just reinforcing what a few others have said- that Davis's act deserved at most a mere mention and explanation and not an ongoing pat in the back. That he got so much attention and praise for doing what any one of us who play the game is expected to do may also indicate that he is well liked and somewhat immune to critical analysis of his performance as a leading player. I have to wonder that if it was Scott Hoch playing the ball as it lies, that we would have heard so much about sportsmanship and integrity.
In as far as giving Davis his due respect, I admire him greatly. He is a wonderful player, and, quite apparently, a nice, likable human being. I still would rather have Sergio as a partner covering my back in a four-ball. And though I would love to have a beer with Davis, I doubt that he would consent happily, whereas I suspect that Sergio and many of his teamates would.
Really, how many of us didn't find the European's interaction with each other and the galleries refreshing? I know that it is much easier to be friendly when things are going well, but that behavior started way before the official matches, and, in my opinion, it was genuine and not a small part of why the Euros kicked our ass.
-
Yeah right. I'll do that if you take the CL off your last name and add a G.
Sir Turkeyaby, I was not the one who foolishly held-on to a contrairian belief, then state it in public, because of someone else's love for Love.
Plus, I'm secure in my happy go lucky existence, to bear said monicker, if I had publicly called him that list of non-deplumes you did, and if he agreed that he wouldn't shoot me. ;D
OK Adam. On that great day I go turkey hunting with Mr. Love, I shall accept that moniker, if it means I don't get shot. Until such time, I shall stick with my own name, thank you very much.
I still don't like Davis Love. I also feel confident he has better things to do than to read this forum, or care about what a dweeb like me says. ;D
And I'm happy you are secure. I feel pretty good about mine own self as well.
;D
-
mr huckabee.....down here we shoot turkey in the spring but have been known to shoot them offseason....please don't let the calendar stand in your way as i would love to help host a shoot for you hereabouts anytime...... :-* ;) :)
-
TomH;
Golf in coastal Georgia is great but sometimes it takes some special preparation. Practice looking over you shoulder! ;)
-
Yikes!
OK guys, I've changed my feeble mind. Davis Love III is not only truly the greatest golfer of our time, but he absolutely defines the words "manly", "cool" and "sportsman" in all possible connotations. I admire him in all ways and live by his teachings.
This ought to tell you how bad I want to come to Cuscowilla and how much I am looking forward to the trip.
TH
-
That's more like it TomH! Don't you just be saying that, though, and not meaning it. Those rural boys down in Georgia are a whole lot better at smellin' a rat than you mght think they are. They don't trust those ultra modern liberal left coasters that much either. Did you ever see that movie with Burt Reynolds about that time those city slickers took that rafting trip down some rural wilderness river in Georgia and ran into some of those good ol boys out on the river by mistake?
-
cue the sound of a banjo, playing the beginning of "dueling banjos"....
Oh yeah, I saw it. Scared the crap out of me.
So I am afraid - very afraid. All this talk has scared the dislike of Love clean out of me.
;D
-
tom huck......if you are already in cuscawilla ,it would be much closer and easier to let us host you and a group of GCA freinds at our new course on lake greenwood in nearby s.c....besides, although turkeys are everywhere this time of year ,you would be more apt to call up a 5' cottonmouth or hog than a decent gobbler.......but then again ,its alot like golf ,any excuse to get out there [and you might really like hanging out in the river swamp].
these are both serious offers ,let me know if you can.....p :)ul
-
damn huck......you haven't lived until you went cottonmouth huntin'...just be careful not to shoot off your toes as you let them get close to you.
-
Er uh Paul, when it comes to any form of hunting, the goober/dweeb/geek is all ME. I am a city boy through and through and the only weapons I have ever fired have been in video game arcades. :-[
So that's nice and all, and I do appreciate it... but for the health and safety of one and all, it's best for me to decline.
As for additional GOLF, well I am always up for that. But unfortunately, the schedule is fully set (for me anyway) already. I get there and play Athens CC (thank you Mr. Young!), then it's Cuscowilla all day Sat and Sun, the off to the airport.
Thanks anyway, though!
TH
-
Haven't read pages 2-4 of this thread so apologies if this is a repeat.
Jerry Pate once sought relief from an unplayable lie in a mid- 70's U.S. Open by claiming that he intended to play the shot left-handed and, in so doing, would be standing on a cart path.
Relief was denied by Sandy Tatum and the following dialogue ensued:
Tatum: "That would substantially alter the configuration of the shot."
Pate: "Mr. Tatum, I went to Alabama - not Harvard. Do I get a free lift or don't I?".
-
"So I am afraid - very afraid. All this talk has scared the dislike of Love clean out of me."
TomH:
Good deal! You're about half way home, my friend. But just remember, you better be totally sincere about what you just said. Guys like Davis and Mark Love and Paul Cowley can smell an insincere city slicker or West Coaster coming about two states away!
-
TEP:
You can count on me. I am nothing if not amiable, pliable and a good learner.
;D
-
"Second, gimme a break! Not cheating is what you're SUPPOSED TO DO! The fact is that the guy did what he's supposed to do. I ain't givin' out anything more than a rubber cookie for that."
Dave:
I just don't think either you or a number of others really understand the significance of that situation with Love on #18 at Oakland Hills. It's not a matter of him just doing (or not doing) what he was supposed to do. You don't seem to realize that there wasn't a rules official out there (or probably anywhere else in the world) who would've thought twice about NOT GIVING LOVE RELIEF in that situation. Word has come back from all around that's pretty clear on that fact now! Don't you even remotely realize what that means?
This is simply not a matter of Love not cheating or not fudging the rules somehow. This was very different. I'm not certain why this is so unclear to most on here. I guess they just don't understand how rules application today (even amongst the world's best rules officials) works that well!
-
We've all heard whining from Tour players on the rare occasion that a rules official does not agree with their request for a drop. Think how much less stressful it must be when your standards are higher than those of the officials.
One would think that DL3 might not even ask for those borderline rulings that seem to give rise to hard feelings when they are turned down.
-
"Pate: "Mr. Tatum, I went to Alabama - not Harvard. Do I get a free lift or don't I?"."
Chip:
You really should read pages 2-4 of this thread. That kind of thing amongst tour pros, and others, is very common and has been for years. Mostly they feel if they don't ask they'll never get and they completely depend on rules officials for that determination---instead of apparently completely understanding both the technicalities of a rule and also the honorable "spirit" of the game underlying it, as Davis Love seemed to so well. Some may depend as they do on rules officials to be safe but too many of them do it because they know and understand if the rules official makes a mistake (agrees with what they're asking for, even if outrageous, and/or makes a far too liberal interpretation and decision or simply makes a rules decision mistake) they (the player) can proceed under that official's ruling and decision with total impunity!
I really hate to say this because it may be just coincidence but an otherwise good guy, Ernie Els, seems prone to milking every possible nuance of the technicialiites of rules decision making amongst rules officials rather than simply applying the honorable spirit of the situation and going on without even talking to a rules official, as Love did.
Again, this could just be coinicidence but two very public situations amongst rules officials and Els (and perhaps some real mistakes on the part of those rules officials) may have gained Els a US Open championship as well as almost a Master championship.
The rules officials that officiate major tournaments are very good and it really is ironic that word is now out that every single one of them was more than ready to grant Love 24-2 relief on the 18th at Oakland Hills. Word is out now that the ones on the scene (which includes one of the best) was simply amazed when Love never asked. He apparently was standing there ready to have Love ask and demonstrate and he would've been granted 24-2 relief.
What some on here are saying that all Love did was just not cheat is apparently not the way it was at all. It's too bad they don't understand that because they're missing a very interesting and probably very important distinction between the way the rules are applied today and the true spirit of the game that lies beneath the honorable way to use the Rules of Golf.
-
Why isn't there a provision within the Rules that one must drop in a similar situation - ie. if seeking relief from a sprinkler head while your ball is in the rough, you must drop in the rough? Seems logical to me. Kind of like if there's casual water in a section of a bunker, you still have to drop in the bunker (at least, I hope that's the rule!).
-
TEP:
Just to try and restore your faith in humanity, I wanted to post and say that I get what you are saying about DLIII. It's not that he didn't cheat when cheating would have been available, it's more that he went beyond and didn't avail himself of an option that while technically available under the rules, just didn't seem right to him based on his respect for the spirit and intent of the rules, fair play, and how the game is played. To me this is very cool and we need more of it.
It's analagous to a tennis player intentionally double-faulting or correcting the referee after receiving an unjust point (line call that goes his way but the he knows was wrong); or in soccer where if a man is hurt, the team with the ball intentionally kicks the ball out of bounds to stop play, so that he can be attended to (then after that the other team tends to throw the ball in right to the first team, in reciprocation). Each of these things does happen from time to time, though the soccer example is more frequent. And in each case, by the letter of the rules, the player (or team) could have taken advantage... they just chose not to because the spirit of fair play overrides the letter of the law.
I have to believe that in golf, this happens more frequently than we know. We do have a great tradition for this kind of thing in this great sport. But still, when it happens on such a huge stage as the Ryder Cup, it's only right that it be noted and attention paid to it.
Hopefully this helps. See, I can stay on topic if I want to. ;D
-
"Why isn't there a provision within the Rules that one must drop in a similar situation - ie. if seeking relief from a sprinkler head while your ball is in the rough, you must drop in the rough? Seems logical to me. Kind of like if there's casual water in a section of a bunker, you still have to drop in the bunker (at least, I hope that's the rule!)."
George:
There's a very simple reason for that that's explained and described in that wonderful little book called "The Priniciples Behind the Rules of Golf" by Richard Tufts. That little book, since written, has been the little virtual "bible" the USGA uses to explain rules "priniciples" and logic and to go to for some decisions and such.
As Tuft's explains, the Rules of Golf makes no distinctions between any areas "through the green"---whether it be rough or fairway makes no difference regarding such things as Rule 24-2 relief (from obstructions). The reason being is a golfer seeking the 'nearest point of relief' is just as likely to have to go from the fairway to the rough (or even into something like a bush) as he is to go from the rough to the fairway so they make no distinctions. Rules writers and good rules officials are all aware that sometimes applying the rules properly may benefit a golfer fortuitously and sometimes not---so they make no distinctions on things like areas "though the green". It's all one of the unique beauties about the Rules of Golf and how they don't believe it's necessary to attempt to define every concievable situation (too many angles on the head of a pin) so as not to fill up a small library with rules and decisions on them).
-
"It's not that he didn't cheat when cheating would have been available,"
TomH:
Somehow, once and for all, I'd like to convince anyone and everyone on here that if Davis Love had asked for and been granted Rule 24-2 relief (which every rules official there admits without question would have been granted him) that would not remotely be in the ballpark of CHEATING!
Why is it so hard for the contributors on here to understand that simple fact? There was nothing about that situation on the 18th at Oakland Hills where cheating would have been available so why must those who post on here keep saying that?
Regarding your post #130 if have a distinct feeling that what Davis Love did on #18 was so unexpected, even to some really good rules officials, that it may have taught them a lesson or at the very least reminded them what that "spirit" of sometimes not using the rules to better an opponent (or fellow competitors who aren't there) is all about. Sometimes rules applications, over time, even amongst very good rules officials, begins to take on a life and meaning of its own that sometimes tends to get away from both the "principles" behind various rules and even the "spirit" of how to use the rules of the game honorably.
-
TEP:
You'll notice that I specifically said such would NOT have been cheating. Oh I know I am not the world's greatest writer, but that seemed pretty clear to me.
Read the rest of my post. Tell me what's wrong with my analogies or summary.
It was preference for the spirit of fair play over availing oneself of an advantage available under the letter of the law and perfectly legal if taken.
Just like what occurs in tennis and soccer, as per my examples.
Come on man, I was just having fun ripping my friend's idol Mr. Love. On this I am serious.
TH
-
"TEP:
You'll notice that I specifically said such would NOT have been cheating."
Tom:
What I saw there was that you said 'when cheating would have been available'. There was nothing I saw out there that indicated cheating would have been available. Love had at least one really good rules official standing right behind him the entire time and I'm sure other rules officials on hand.
"Read the rest of my post. Tell me what's wrong with my analogies or summary."
I did read the rest of your post. Nothing at all wrong with your analogies or summary in my book.
-
TEP:
Hmmmm... I see my rants against Love, among other things, seem to have disqualified me from any benefit of the doubt from you. That's ok, you can just join everyone else there.
;D
My words chosen in that first sentence did not convey my intent well enough, obviously. However, the intent and meaning were quite clear in the remainder of each of my last two posts on this thread, which should have outweighed the first sentence, or at least caused a benefit of the doubt to be given. But to explain this better...
"Cheating" was a euphemism for "availing oneself of an advantage available under the letter of the law but perhaps against the spirit, if the latter is important to one." Sometimes one word works well, if people are willing to give the benefit of the doubt, over long-winded explanations. Obviously that wasn't the case here!
But in any case, I do understand the point you are trying to make. Just wanted you to know that someone did. Love choose to not take an option he legally could have, because for him it seemed wrong and against the spirit of fair play. Once again, that is pretty cool and the world needs more of it.
TH
-
TomH:
As you no doubt have guessed, I feel that not only too many players today, including many good tour players, simply take advantage of the letter of the Rules at the expense of the honorable spirit that's supposed to underlie the rules but that even some good rules officials have gotten into applying the rules on-course that's technicially within the letter of the Rules of Golf but occassionally gets a bit wide of the spirit of the game and how the rules are best applied.
I'm certainly not blaming any of these people and I'm surely not accusing anyone of cheating on the Rules of Golf. I think the reason that things have evolved the way they have is simply because most all these people just aren't that aware of what that "spirit" underlying the game and its rules really is.
Probably the most significant thing said on this entire thread, in my opinion, was back on page 1 or 2 when Phillipe Binette said--had Love taken 24-2 relief from where he was it would in effect have diminished the advantage that Clarke held over him at that point with a better tee shot than Love produced!
THAT, in a nutshell, is what the "spirit" of the game regarding what Love did is all about!
-
Probably the most significant thing said on this entire thread, in my opinion, was back on page 1 or 2 when Phillipe Binette said--had Love taken 24-2 relief from where he was it would in effect have diminished the advantage that Clarke held over him at that point with a better tee shot than Love produced!
And to Love, that would not have been "fair", nor would it have been morally or ethically "right", no matter what the rules say on the issue. The rules shouldn't give him an advantage he didn't earn.
I get it.
And your darn right, our entire sports culture does tend to fly in the face of this. Individuals and teams are taught early on that anything one can get away with, sans penalty or getting "caught", is ok so long as it helps the team or the individual competitively. That's how sports is, and perhaps always has been more or less. You do what you have to do to win, inside the rules - and bending such to one's advantage is often lauded rather than decried.
Which again makes what Love did so darn cool. He went beyond this, choosing his own moral code over what the rules allowed, AND what is seemingly encouraged in other sports and our culture in general. This to me is very significant without a doubt, and Love deserves all praise and acknowledgements given.
Transfer this to baseball... when's the last time a runner called himself out on a blown call? Oh, they know if they are safe or out - that's why they argue so stridently when the calls DON'T go their way. Or in football, could you imagine a player telling the ref he committed a penalty? It's just not going to happen. In fact in that sport - which I love as much as golf, btw - players are actively coached on how to commit penalties and not get caught, camoflauging their actions. It's part of the game.
Transfer this to everyday life... entire programs are created which show individuals how to declare items on their taxes that they really didn't do (or earn, or whatever) but that will not trigger IRS audit flags. The idea there being that it's OK to declare such, with the underlying moral excuse that it's not wrong if you don't get caught. Perhaps this is taking this whole issue way to far, but to me it's an indicator of how far too many in our culture think.
Which again highlights why Love's actions are so cool... Such serve once again to set golf apart, from other sports and from our culture in general, and this serve to highlight once again just how great our sport is.
TH
-
I was watching my son's 10th-grade football game last night. On a fourth down play, the other team's quarterback threw a low pass to one of their receivers. The ball and the boy's hands and the ground all seemed to converge simultaneously; but both refs made the same call at the same time -- "No catch; the ball hit the ground!" -- even as the receiver was leaping up in the air, holding the ball aloft and insisting that he caught it.
When he realized he wasn't going to get the call, he dropped the ball nonchalantly and ran back to the sidelines. By his own actions, you knew he knew he hadn't caught it, but he has been trained -- by his coaches, his teammates, the sport, our culture -- to try to pull a fast one if he can get away with it.
I found myself thinking of Davis Love III (the geek!) at that moment, and wondered why so few athletes in other sports adhere to, or even understand, the higher code of honor that is second nature to golfers. Instead of golf infecting other sports, I fear the opposite is gradually happening. We do need to celebrate DL3 and the other guardians who are keeping the barbarians from the gates.
-
I was watching my son's 10th-grade football game last night. On a fourth down play, the other team's quarterback threw a low pass to one of their receivers. The ball and the boy's hands and the ground all seemed to converge simultaneously; but both refs made the same call at the same time -- "No catch; the ball hit the ground!" -- even as the receiver was leaping up in the air, holding the ball aloft and insisting that he caught it.
When he realized he wasn't going to get the call, he dropped the ball nonchalantly and ran back to the sidelines. By his own actions, you knew he knew he hadn't caught it, but he has been trained -- by his coaches, his teammates, the sport, our culture -- to try to pull a fast one if he can get away with it.
I found myself thinking of Davis Love III (the geek!) at that moment, and wondered why so few athletes in other sports adhere to, or even understand, the higher code of honor that is second nature to golfers. Instead of golf infecting other sports, I fear the opposite is gradually happening. We do need to celebrate DL3 and the other guardians who are keeping the barbarians from the gates.
Rick, this is EXACTLY what my long-winded last post was trying to get at. EXACTLY. The boy is trained to try and get the call, even though he knew he didn't actually catch the ball... and had he managed to convince the refs he did make the catch, his coach would have praised him for it.
Which of course highlights how our sports culture is, and underscores how cool Love's actions were. Geek or no-geek.
;D
-
Tom -- Another near-collision in cyberspace. I salute your wisdom and your typing speed.
-
Rick and TomH;
The real difference in golf today that highlights Love's decision using that analogy of the high school football game and that kid who said he caught the ball when the refs ruled he didn't is with the Love situation it was as if the refs said the kid did catch the ball and once the dust settled that kid stood up and said;
"I've got to tell you despite what you think you saw I guess only I know I really did NOT catch it!"
Now how often, if ever, have you seen that happen?
-
When he realized he wasn't going to get the call, he dropped the ball nonchalantly and ran back to the sidelines. By his own actions, you knew he knew he hadn't caught it, but he has been trained -- by his coaches, his teammates, the sport, our culture -- to try to pull a fast one if he can get away with it.
Rick -
Why do you assume that he was trained by his coaches, teammates, etc. to try and pull a fast one?
Did you ever assume that maybe he dropped the ball non-chalantly and ran to the sidelines because his coaches had trained him to abide by the decision of the officials, not to argue the call and act like a gentlemen?
Mike
-
Tom -- Another near-collision in cyberspace. I salute your wisdom and your typing speed.
Same to you, my friend!
Here's a tough one though, on which I'd like your wisdom. I am two games into a season as coach of my son's 7years old and under soccer team. Do I coach them to be like Love, or like they will have to act in all other sports? I swear I am really trying to do the former. But it's tough when we see other teams blatantly NOT doing so, and it hurts us competitively - and as much as I try to make this "just for fun", well.. these little guys do want to win, at least to some extent! Man, talking the talk and walking the walk really are too different things. What can I say to get my boys to see the overall good of taking the "LoveIII" road?
TH
-
Rick and TomH;
The real difference in golf today that highlights Love's decision using that analogy of the high school football game and that kid who said he caught the ball when the refs ruled he didn't is with the Love situation it was as if the refs said the kid did catch the ball and once the dust settled that kid stood up and said;
"I've got to tell you despite what you think you saw I guess only I know I really did NOT catch it!"
Now how often, if ever, have you seen that happen?
Never. That's what I'm trying to say as well.
Beyond that, I wonder what his team's - and his coach's - reaction would be if he did that. They'd likely bench him and chastise him rather than laud him.
Sorry to be so pessimistic... Mike B. might be right, the coach in Rick's instance may have coached him well to do exactly this, or at least to accept the refs decisions with equanimity... but I see so many actions going blatantly against this, well... it does tend to make one cynical.
TH
-
Here's what you can tell them TomH. That all they really need to do, either collectively or individually is look just to their own consciences to figure out how to do the right thing and that when they do that honestly they just may find that it's better to lose with honor than to win without it!
-
Here's a tough one though, on which I'd like your wisdom. I am two games into a season as coach of my son's 7years old and under soccer team.
Now there is an honorable sport where diving and broken legs that heal in a matter of seconds seem to be the norm ...
-
TEP:
That is VERY good and I do appreciate it. Because Mike B. is right - I did highlight in my posts to you an instance of where soccer players do show honor, but that is dwarfed (at the higher levels anyway) by exactly what Mike says - players feigning injury to get a rest, only to bounce right back up when they are sufficiently rested. Talk about going against the spirit of the rules...
So you can see the problem. I'd hate it if one of my little guys even thought that doing that was right.
We're gonna go to a pro soccer game this Sat night. I hope this happens. I'm gonna ask the guys if they think that was right to do... it will be interesting what they say.
TH
-
Dick Copus, the golf coach at Georgia back in the 80's, used to tell players to keep their eyes closed when moving loose impediments.
-
Tom Paul:
I'm not surprised by Pate's request - in fact, to have the creativity to ask the question in the first place infers that JP isn't quite so dumb, after all.
The point of my post was:
1) to highlight the verbal "splendiferousness" of Sandy Tatum (e.g. "We are not trying to humiliate the best golfers in the world - we are trying to identify them".)
2) to offer up a possible chuckle at Pate's rather witty response.
If I played golf for a living, I'd probably be as opportunistic as many others in terms of at least asking for rulings.
What Davis Love did was the ultimate class act.
Question: Do you believe that he would have been so magnanimous if the outcome of the team competition wasn't already a (de facto) foregone conclusion?
Maybe yes. Maybe no. I'm inclined to think he would have done the same as he did given the front left pin location.
HOWEVER, do you think Captain Sutton would have permitted Love to not ask for relief if the outcome of the team competiton wasn't already a (de facto) foregone conclusion?
I'm not so sure that El Capitan wouldn't have assumed his "final decision" role if he thought it might matter.
-
Mike -- You could, I suppose, be right. I will give the kid and the coach the benefit of the doubt. But we've all seen otherwise.
Huck -- TEP has cut to the heart of the matter, but at certain tender ages, examining one's conscience does not always yield the results we would hope for. I think you have to deal in specifics. If you believe it is dishonorable to take a dive or fake an injury, tell your players you think so, and tell them why. Then, if they can't find it within their own conscience to do the right thing, maybe they'll use yours a default position. This probably won't change the culture of the sport, but at least they'll have a clearer idea of whether such actions are something they truly want to perpetuate.
That's my best shot.
-
And that is fantastic and sage counsel and I really do appreciate it, Rick. It's funny, these games are so slow (pack-ball) and these kids are so innocent that nothing really overt has come up yet, at least not with my guys... but I have seen some inklings of this in other more skilled and experienced teams (yes, that does happen at the U7 level!). I think the subject will come up at some point and when it does, I'm gonna try and do exactly what you said, following TEP's basic guideline as well.
I really think the pro game might give us a very good learning experience this weekend... we shall see...
In any case my Dad coached me long ago that in the end it is way better to lose with honor than win by giving away integrity. Of course I didn't know what the hell he meant at the time, and maybe that's why I lose so much, but over time it did sink in, and it's been a rare time I haven't felt good about my actions in competition, both in and out of golf.
BTW, Chip asks some very difficult questions... I'm just feeling so good about Davis' actions, I don't want to try and answer them myself. I'm gonna prefer to think that Davis would have done what he felt was right regardless of the competitive situation, and that if Sutton tried to step in he would have held his ground. But if I think about this too much, my happy feeling might go away.
TH
-
... If you believe it is dishonorable to take a dive or fake an injury, tell your players you think so, and tell them why...
That's my best shot.
Agree 100% and I know you don't see 8 year old soccer players taking a dive ... somehow they learn that techinque by the time they get to high school ...
To me this all seems like good parenting, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. I have seen it so many times, the dad acts like a jerk and the kid will end up acting the same ... from all accounts DL II was a solid guy ...
-
Chip:
Those questions of what Love or Sutton may have done if the final result of the Ryder Cup was in the breach is not for such as me to give answers to particularly since that wasn't the way it was so we'll never remotely know. Of course, I'd like to think if the whole thing was in the balance that may've been the time Love particuarly would've done such a thing. In some ways, in a major team event it may've been something like what Nicklaus once did with Jacklin for which a number of the members of his team found it hard to forgive him for (obviously they wanted to win that badly). I think after the passage of time, particularly, what Nicklaus did will go down as an act of honor and fairness after 99.9% of the battle had been waged.
There was a wonderful saying painted on the wall above the blackboard in my old math classroom at St Marks that said;
"Character is what you are in the dark".
That's how I feel about what Love did and I don't really feel it's necessary to wonder what he would've done in different circumstances.
-
Tom:
Without diluting the classiness of Love's position a single iota, the Nicklaus/Jacklin situation was a good deal different than the hypothetical scenario I put forth, IMO.
To wit: The missable putt that Nicklaus conceded Jacklin to tie the Ryder Cup still allowed the U.S. to retain the trophy. While winning is certainly better than tieing, it seems that KEEPING the trophy is particularly important from the anecdotal evidence that I've been reading and hearing.
You are correct that many of Nicklaus' temmates were not so enamored of his gesture. I'm told that Captain Snead was especially vocal in his "graphic" criticism of JN's sportsmanship.