[Sean_A]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/scottish-hockey-player-barred-championship-game-medal-ceremony-211815047.html

Ciao

[Colin Macqueen]

I dunno...Dundonians, Dundonians.  A Lithuanian Dundonian!   Always dropping themselves in the shit. I mean to say it was only a bunch of Fifers that were having the piss taken out of them.  It's not as though FBD was the Fifies mascot it was only a wee bear for Gawd's sake.

Orra best,

Colin

[Melvyn Morrow]

Madness, but if only the R&A showed a fraction of the balls of Scottish Ice Hockey Association we might still have a walking thinking game called golf instead of watered down variations of the real thing. Hopefully some of the testosterone from Dundee may find its way to Pilmour Links, it just needs a little.

I hear the Bear is starting to play golf, wonder if we have a young Jack on the horizon? 

[Bill Seitz]

I'm not sure what's more unbelievable, the fact that there's a Scottish Ice Hockey Association, or that the kid in the middle of the team picture is under 14.  That kid is huge!  Though I did like the line about "bitter Canucks fans" if for no other reason than it serves as yet another reminder that the Kings took out the Canucks this year. 

[Bob_Huntley]

Melvyn,

I have played in a goodly number of the R&A's Autumn Meetings and I have yet too see a member in the Medal, the Calcutta Cup or the  Jubilee Vase ride in a golf cart. Apparently carts can be used by the over seventies on the Strathtyrum, should they do so, they cannot play in the other events.

I have a question for you, where are golf carts used in Britain and the Commonwealth and how would the R&A stop the use of them by edict?

Bob

[Melvyn Morrow]

Bob

Alas IMHO the R&A have killed the game Old Tom tried to encourage the world to play. I sincerely believe that they have done a disservice to the great game of golf. In my defence I look to the records for the last 100years.

[Jon Wiggett]

Melvyn,

I have played in a goodly number of the R&A's Autumn Meetings and I have yet too see a member in the Medal, the Calcutta Cup or the  Jubilee Vase ride in a golf cart. Apparently carts can be used by the over seventies on the Strathtyrum, should they do so, they cannot play in the other events.

I have a question for you, where are golf carts used in Britain and the Commonwealth and how would the R&A stop the use of them by edict?

Bob

Bob,

it is illegal to drive and use a mobile phone, ipad, etc at the same time here in the UK. As the R&A now allow mobiles on the course it stands to reason that driving buggies would not be allowed

Jon

[Bob_Huntley]

Jon,

The Links Trust runs the Old Course, not the R&A.

Bob

[Jon Wiggett]

Bob,

I was referring to the Open and not the TOC

Jon

[DMoriarty]

Bob

Alas IMHO the R&A have killed the game Old Tom tried to encourage the world to play. I sincerely believe that they have done a disservice to the great game of golf. In my defence I look to the records for the last 100years.

Melvyn,

Bob's question seemed a reasonable one, but you skirted it.  Mind answering?   Here it is again . . .

Melvyn,

I have played in a goodly number of the R&A's Autumn Meetings and I have yet too see a member in the Medal, the Calcutta Cup or the  Jubilee Vase ride in a golf cart. Apparently carts can be used by the over seventies on the Strathtyrum, should they do so, they cannot play in the other events.

I have a question for you, where are golf carts used in Britain and the Commonwealth and how would the R&A stop the use of them by edict?

Bob

[Melvyn Morrow]

David

I would refer you to previous comments made when asked, but to try and resolve this once and for all I would advocate the following.

I feel that an in depth study is required to confirm if riding is an advantage to the rider over the walker. As a study on the excess of energy in the picking up/dropping down of a golf bag was undertaken in 1920 (reported in last November in a US Scientific journal), then I see no difficulty in extending that study re excess of energy to include riding.

If there is a clear proof the energy is saved by riding then my suggestion is to place penalty strokes on the rider – subject to the full report from said study I would expect 3-4 strokes per round of 18 Holes and by modifying a player’s handicap if he/she takes a cart.

I feel we need to get some form of balance back into the game of golf which I feel is on the cusp of becoming a game for chancers or in all honesty cheats. Let me be clear I do not consider all golfers as potential cheats, but some I suppose are, so we need direction and action to get the game back on the fairway well away from any path.

To continue turning a blind eye is not the responsible way forward IMHO, so I suggest let’s do a real study and if proven, then let’s see some action.

Ultimately we need to agree or define the game of golf as being a walking game period. Use carts by all means but do not call it golf but car golf, riding golf, easy golf. A study would prove is the rider actually benefits then corrections can be included subject to the depth of the aids generated by not walking.

Hope I have explained how I see a way forward, but not until a full study, after all its not new, a similar study as I said was undertaken in 1920.

Melvyn   

[Bob_Huntley]

Melvyn,

Like you, I do believe that for most golfers walking is best, however for those that want to ride should not be ridiculed and called to task for so doing. One thing that has irked me is to see a Club Championship played between a walker and a rider, the latter has a distinct advantage.

The second thing that annoys me and probably others on this site, is your continuing one trick pony of castigating cart paths and other non- Scottish influences on the game. I am not sure if you have spent any time in Florida but many of thousands of Brits have; very few walk the courses.  

May I suggest that you try see how long you can go without preaching your mantra, I cannot speak for others but I find it tiring.

Bob

[DMoriarty]

Melvyn, When reading now century old rules decisions by the R&A, one thing surprised and impressed me was the R&A's attitude toward other clubs.  To paraphrase, the R&A indicated that they were interpreting the rules for their club, in a manner they thought fitting for the R&A and in accordance to their understanding of the tradition and history of the game.  As for other clubs, the R&A would not dictate the rules to anyone else, and others were free to follow or go in their own direction.  To my mind, this live and let live attitude somehow seems to fit with the idea of golf as a gentleman's game, in that golf about doing what is right rather than browbeating others into doing what you think they ought to be doing.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Bob

Why am I not surprised with your comment.  Not everything Scottish is beautiful or great, I suppose I could not have started my great dislike for tracks or cart tracks because of Grannie Clark’s Wynd on TOC. With your pre-set idea about me it’s natural that you think I am anti anything not Scottish. Wonder why I live in the wilds of East Anglia and not those of Fife.

I look to the game as it was taught to me. IMO I see no better way to enjoy the game than to do it all under your own steam, be that walking or navigating the golf courses and to rise to the challenge that is golf. You may or may not agree that the heart of the game is the challenge, to face if not conquer the terrain, environment and design. So my comments are based upon my opinions gathered through experience. I say little if anything about other countries that I have not visited.

My first or early experience of tracks start at TOC, Grannie Clark’s Wynd where my ball from time to time would make contact with the tarmac which gave the ball more of a kick that I would have preferred, but that was down to my poor skill/shot at that time. From these encounter (on more than one occasion) set me against paths, tracks or cart tracks either across the path of the ball or parallel with the fairway. So the record is straight, my dislike comes from a feature that ultimately was left in this condition by Old Tom. Sounds more anti paths than perhaps anti Scottish or from anywhere else outside Scottish influence.

Bob, let’s get a study underway, prove the point one way or another re energy saving using carts vs. advantage over a walker. Then let’s lay down some simple laws to rebalance the books, be it as I said by adding stroke penalty to riders or actually define the use of carts as another game not golf albeit a variation of golf. After all in this country driving a car is qualified (I believe) by two types of licence – one for automatics, the other for manual gears. The manual gear licence holder can drive an automatic but the automatic licence holder cannot drive a manual. Now that’s clear cut, it gives definition and a clear message to all. Why not in Golf, to protect the traditions of the game. Riding golf is around 50 years old with next to no history as the carts are not allowed in The Open.  Walking is Six Centuries old and needs protection when a clubs calling themselves Golf Clubs ban walking.

David

I take your point but would say that is still the core of the problem. Our modern society cannot live on the basis of ‘Live and Let Live’. It’s against all human nature, we need laws and regulations to enable us to live with each other, more importantly understand what is said and is being mean when said. Just look to the Law, look to the detailed legal system even with all its rules and amendments today we tend to refer to president than the legal term. In short, alas we need rules and that applies to golf. The Game of golf has slowly evolved, now this was great when establishing reliability in ball and sets of clubs but we are now way past this, we have consistency in both club/ball. Why do we need to keep developing the equipment so the ball can travel further and further then ops we suddenly found our courses too small so what do we do, start lengthening them. Tell me where the Hell is the common sense in that. I am under the belief that a Governing Body is there to protect and safe guard the long traditions of the game. Allowing carts, distance aids etc. is IMHO not protecting let alone honouring the traditions of the game. Also as a Governing Body what happened about that duty of care, after all it’s not hard to forget it or the history of the game, as they have much of it in or around them in St Andrews. Or is history now only defined by being able to purchase the equipment of past glories achieved by past names associated with The Royal & Ancient Game of Golf.

David, common sense seems to be missing when a governing body is willing to extend great old courses instead of limiting ball travel. I most sincerely hope that this is down to a weak confused governing body than to one that is in the pockets of the equipment manufacturers.

Definitions need to be defined not to mention tightened and simply clear messages sent out as to how the game is played and that should include the difference between its variations. Laws need to be added for the use of any aids and perhaps some studies made to form an opinion if there is a difference that is reflected through performance.

A Governing Body is not just there to make money but to protect the game, not see it break away into a dozen different variations with one set of rules or should I say guides rather than rules? 

Melvyn

[Bob_Huntley]

Melvyn,

I agree wth many of your views on golf but it seems to me that you are a latter day Savonarola on a quixoitic journey to change the human condtion. No matter what the purists want, the dam has been burst and the existence of many golfing venues would disappear without the use of golf carts.

You also speak of fairness; where is the fairness when one man with funds can afford a caddie and the artisan cannot? Would you give the  less fortunate golfer extra strokes?.   

Bob

[Melvyn Morrow]

I am indeed no lover of a faith that believes that a fellow man can absolve another of his sins so he can go and sin again. Nor am I saying that carts can’t be used, do so but define the sport by a name describing and also adjust the rules accordingly to reflect that sport.

As for fairness, lets just ask the question is it fair men can’t give birth to a baby, is it fair that someone with no arms can’t play golf. The world, Bob, is unfair period.

We have to accept the cards we are dealt, we need to address things with a degree of common sense.

You say “You also speak of fairness; where is the fairness when one man with funds can afford a caddie and the artisan cannot? Would you give the less fortunate golfer extra strokes?”
My answer is where is the fairness when one man with funds can afford a Membership at The R&A yet many in St Andrews cannot? Yet the main problem which you have not addressed is that walking golf is not the same as riding golf – a point I would like the R&A to prove by undertaking a proper study on the excess of energy. In your argument if both the rider and walker are proved to have no advantage over the other then your point is certainly true and you win the argument, its not fair to penalise the rider. Yet I think we both suspect that a rider certainly saves  a great deal of energy by riding, but I would willing wait to see the outcome of a bona fide  study.

[DMoriarty]

Melvyn, 

In fact Bob did acknowledge that walking golf is generally best and even decried competitions between a walker and non-walker ("One thing that has irked me is to see a Club Championship played between a walker and a rider, the latter has a distinct advantage.")

When you ignore and alienate even those willing to somewhat support your positions, perhaps it is time to reconsider your approach.

[Melvyn Morrow]

David

With all due respect to you and Bob, I did not ignore nor alienate him or anyone.  There was nothing I said with that intent. I did talk about studies, I did mention the unfairness in life, in fact I called for a study to see what the outcome would be.

I put my case forward, I answered point I believe raised. Yes I took the discussion further and replied to comments made but I do not see where I ignored or alienated anyone.
You need to enlighten me.

[Bob_Huntley]

Melvyn,

How do you feel about the stone wall at North Berwick? I find that it is as much the of the charm of Scottish golf as is Granny Clark's Wynd at St. Andrews. Perhaps it is an odd reflection but I think the Wynd displays a very democratic example of the spirit of St. Andrew when all can walk upon it. I must say that when I hit the road I was delighted with the result

You wrote "My answer is where is the fairness when one man with funds can afford a Membership at The R&A yet many in St Andrews cannot? Now I can see why you have such animus toward the R&A; it is about the fairness issue of snotty Sassanachs and Scottish gentry with an attitude and a bundle of pounds and the common man is without either.
 
When it comes to the fairness issue I remarked in a previous post that I was given sound advice as a very young child that "Life is inherently unfair...you must get used to it".

Bob

[DMoriarty]

Melvyn,  I won't speak for Bob, but while I agree with much of what you say generally, you have alienated me by harping on this cart issue every chance you get, whether or not on topic, and in way too many threads.  And you have ignored the extent to which many agree with you, and instead continued on your soap box.  For example almost immediately after Bob acknowledged that walking golf is generally better and that a rider has an "distinct advantage" over a walker you lectured, "Yet the main problem which you have not addressed is that walking golf is not the same as riding golf . . . ."    He had not only just addressed it, he agreed with you!   It as if if you are working off of a script and barely even reading the posts of others.  

As for your idea of a study, why is it necessary?  Who is arguing with your notion that walking a golf course takes less energy than riding?  

As for your proposed solution of penalty strokes for those taking carts it seems downright silly for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that it would be a wash in the vast majority of matches where both sides either walk or ride.   An easier solution (and one which you seem to have ignored) is outlined in Bob's experiences with and description of the R&A's Autumn Meetings:  "I have yet to see a member in the Medal, the Calcutta Cup or the Jubilee Vase ride in a golf cart."  The R&A seems to have the problem solved with regard to their events and without resorting to any sort of a strange penalty system.  I'd think you'd like their system, and that the three of us could agree that this is infinitely preferable to your penalty system. 

 Would really you prefer it if the R&A turned carts loose at their Autumn Meetings for those willing to take a three stroke hit?  

I've never seen a Cart used in the Open Rotation.  Have you?  

[Mark Chaplin]

Bob there are few courses in the UK where buggy use is widespread, they tend to be courses built in the last 20 years. Cart paths are pretty rare.

The only place I've seen widespread buggy use is in the USA and according to my knowledge the R&A doesn't run the game there.

Also I doubt there are many people who play golf who couldn't afford an R&A membership, it's not the cost that is the prohibitory factor.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Bob

The reference to Grannie Clark’s Wynd relates to my first experience to my ball on tarmac. It was the beginning of my dislike to paths certainly tarmac paths on a course which in time as encountered cart paths included them. It was a home grown dislike and had nothing to do with outside Scottish influences. Grannie Clark’s Wynd was only tarmacked to remove the cart tracks that damaged the course in the 19th Century. As for stone walls etc I have no problems with them.

It’s OK for you to use a Caddie as the example but I am not allowed to use Membership of The R&A. Clearly you have totally forgotten my IM I sent you some time ago explaining just some of the issues I have with the R&A.

David

Fine I understand you. As for carts, as there was once a scientific study in energy related to the bag would it not be interesting and sensible to undertake a similar study to prove or not the influence a cart has upon a golfer thus reflected within his game. I feel it would clear the air, bring out everything into the open, as I said balance the books and see if is stacked in the interest of rider or walker. That would give the Governing Body the right information to precede one way or the other. Let’s not forget the original study was undertaken in the US and in 1920, some 30 years before the first cart showed its face on a course. Why did the governing body not call for a study on its merits etc?

I go on, yes I do, I will continue to push the point as long as I can. I do it because I believe golf’s governing body needs to understand that there are consequences re their decision, so they need to be considered very carefully.     

I am indeed sorry to seem to alienate you and others, that is not my intention.

[Bob_Huntley]

Bob

The reference to Grannie Clark’s Wynd relates to my first experience to my ball on tarmac. It was the beginning of my dislike to paths certainly tarmac paths on a course which in time as encountered cart paths included them. It was a home grown dislike and had nothing to do with outside Scottish influences. Grannie Clark’s Wynd was only tarmacked to remove the cart tracks that damaged the course in the 19th Century. As for stone walls etc I have no problems with them.

It’s OK for you to use a Caddie as the example but I am not allowed to use Membership of The R&A. Clearly you have totally forgotten my IM I sent you some time ago explaining just some of the issues I have with the R&A.

David

Fine I understand you. As for carts, as there was once a scientific study in energy related to the bag would it not be interesting and sensible to undertake a similar study to prove or not the influence a cart has upon a golfer thus reflected within his game. I feel it would clear the air, bring out everything into the open, as I said balance the books and see if is stacked in the interest of rider or walker. That would give the Governing Body the right information to precede one way or the other. Let’s not forget the original study was undertaken in the US and in 1920, some 30 years before the first cart showed its face on a course. Why did the governing body not call for a study on its merits etc?

I go on, yes I do, I will continue to push the point as long as I can. I do it because I believe golf’s governing body needs to understand that there are consequences re their decision, so they need to be considered very carefully.     

I am indeed sorry to seem to alienate you and others, that is not my intention.

[Bob_Huntley]

Melvyn,

I am afraid that I don't remember your IM to me but it was not for lack of interest. I had a brain scan last week and when my doctor  called I asked if she had found anything, she replied" There was nothing there".  I thought that there had to have been a better answer than that. 

Bob

[J_ Crisham]

Bob,  the more acceptable response from your physician would be that no abnormalities were noted or things presented within normal limits. In any case I hope all is well with you,  jack

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()