I think this DG is in danger of becoming a little inbred...

« **Reply #25 on:** January 10, 2007, 01:15:54 PM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on January 10, 2007, 12:57:22 PM

Brian,

As you can tell by Cirba jumping on your comment, there is a good news/bad news reality to this site for good players as follows:

The bad news is that long hitting good players are seen as ignorant babboons who simply kill the ball, chip up and putt, sometimes poorly because they are ignorant of subtleties...then jump in a cart and move on.

John,

Besides that fact that you can be sublimely wise and eloquent one day and a completely rude ignoramus the next, how does a ball that reduced distance proportionately for all golfers (assuming such a theoretical ball existed) penalize the longer hitter?

I also know a lot of guys who hit the ball over 300 yards and can't break 85 John.

Please tell me why distance isn't all relative?

« **Reply #26 on:** January 10, 2007, 01:32:07 PM »

Mike,

You want great golfers to hit the ball shorter without penalizing the beginning or senior golfer...a noble but communist effort. I think you know enough about physics to understand that it would be simple through aerodynamics and spin rates to create a ball that max's out at 300 yds without penalizing the 240 yd hitter...It would create a tighter talent curve which makes it a beauty contest and not a game.

Distance is not realitive because not all balls are hit in a straight line. Your ball would actually reward the poor but strong swing because mishits would not go into the woods. A place all mishits should go.

« **Reply #27 on:** January 10, 2007, 01:32:50 PM »

"I also know a lot of guys who hit the ball over 300 yards and can't break 85 John."

Mike

Are you looking in your mirror or at your 2007 Barney swim suit calendar? I like April where he's painting the white stripe down the middle of I-70 in his thong.....

As for the topic--too much clutter with too little substance, too many repeat threads.....like this one.

Rich

« **Reply #28 on:** January 10, 2007, 01:40:06 PM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on January 10, 2007, 01:32:07 PM

Mike,

You want great golfers to hit the ball shorter without penalizing the beginning or senior golfer...a noble but communist effort. I think you know enough about physics to understand that it would be simple through aerodynamics and spin rates to create a ball that max's out at 300 yds without penalizing the 240 yd hitter...It would create a tighter talent curve which makes it a beauty contest and not a game.

Distance is not realitive because not all balls are hit in a straight line. Your ball would actually reward the poor but strong swing because mishits would not go into the woods. A place all mishits should go.

John,

That's not what I want.

Personally I'd like to see a ball that reduced everyone by 10% or so.

Rich,

Now that would be pornography!

Can you post some pics here?

« **Reply #29 on:** January 10, 2007, 01:43:58 PM »

Mike,

Nobody, not even you wants a ball that reduces JB Holmes by 33 yds and a 70 year old man by 20yds...that is simply crazy.

« **Reply #30 on:** January 10, 2007, 01:51:49 PM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on January 10, 2007, 01:43:58 PM

Mike,

Nobody, not even you wants a ball that reduces JB Holmes by 33 yds and a 70 year old man by 20yds...that is simply crazy.

It's only crazy when all the courses are over 7200 yards, John.

« **Reply #31 on:** January 10, 2007, 01:51:58 PM »

If you want a new ball that is fine I will have to live with it if it is for everyone. I have a problem with alot of people on here saying need to add features to discourage the long accurate hitters.(they do exist)it is the single sided arguments that are my pet peeves, I do not consider myself a flogger I do however hit the ball a long way.

« **Reply #32 on:** January 10, 2007, 01:54:18 PM »

Quote from: Brian Noser on January 10, 2007, 01:51:58 PM

If you want a new ball that is fine I will have to live with it if it is for everyone. I have a problem with alot of people on here saying need to add features to discourage the long accurate hitters.(they do exist)it is the single sided arguments that are my pet peeves, I do not consider myself a flogger I do however hit the ball a long way.

Brian,

I agree.

I think the idea of narrowing the fairway at 300+ yards is ridiculous.

Constant layup golf is not much fun.

« **Reply #33 on:** January 10, 2007, 01:57:23 PM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on January 10, 2007, 01:32:07 PM

Distance is not realitive because not all balls are hit in a straight line. Your ball would actually reward the poor but strong swing because mishits would not go into the woods. A place all mishits should go.

Hey, let's not discriminate against bunkers, water, tall grasses, hardpan, or someone's back yard...

« **Reply #34 on:** January 10, 2007, 02:08:02 PM »

Holy crap some one on here agrees with me....

« **Reply #35 on:** January 10, 2007, 02:27:31 PM »

Quote from: Brian Noser on January 10, 2007, 02:08:02 PM

Holy crap some one on here agrees with me....

One could logically argue that fairways should be "wider" at that length, but I wouldn't go that far.

« **Reply #36 on:** January 10, 2007, 02:35:20 PM »

I reckon you would be banned for a statment like that, even just typing it here you may want to go in hiding for a while.

« **Reply #37 on:** January 10, 2007, 02:38:34 PM »

Quote from: Brian Noser on January 10, 2007, 02:35:20 PM

I reckon you would be banned for a statment like that, even just typing it here you may want to go in hiding for a while.

Brian,

It just makes sense that a longer shot has a wider dispersement rate. Why should a shot that I hit 2 degrees offline at 250 yards find the fairway while a shot you hit 2 degrees offline at 300 yards finds the rough, or worse?

Where did Kavanaugh go, since he knows so much about what I think?

« **Reply #38 on:** January 10, 2007, 02:48:45 PM »

Quote from: Mike Cirba on January 10, 2007, 02:38:34 PM

Quote from: Brian Noser on January 10, 2007, 02:35:20 PM
I reckon you would be banned for a statment like that, even just typing it here you may want to go in hiding for a while.

Brian,

It just makes sense that a longer shot has a wider dispersement rate. Why should a shot that I hit 2 degrees offline at 250 yards find the fairway while a shot you hit 2 degrees offline at 300 yards finds the rough, or worse?

Where did Kavanaugh go, since he knows so much about what I think?

Mike,

You may say one thing in an attempt to fool us but I know that you realize that golf has to have a risk/reward relationship if it is going to have options. Have you ever hit anything other than driver off of the tee in an attempt to control a possible bad swing with less distance. I think you have. You can fool yourself easier than you can fool the rest of us...we have been here too long.

« **Reply #39 on:** January 10, 2007, 02:53:31 PM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on January 10, 2007, 02:48:45 PM

Mike,

You may say one thing in an attempt to fool us but I know that you realize that golf has to have a risk/reward relationship if it is going to have options. Have you ever hit anything other than driver off of the tee in an attempt to control a possible bad swing with less distance. I think you have. You can fool yourself easier than you can fool the rest of us...we have been here too long.

John,

Under the fairness doctrine, where is the risk/reward for a guy who only hits it 100 yards maximum?

If my average swing with a driver sends the ball 300 yards with carry and roll, then why should I have to play a narrower course in relation to a guy whose average drive sends the ball 200 or 250 yards, given equal fairway widths at each respective distance?

Yet, that's the reality, isn't it? And, it is supposedly fair in the end because I have a shorter approach shot with a more lofted club. Possibly, that's true and things would even out.

However, my real point John is simply that I'm AGAINST efforts to "tighten" things up at 300 yards or beyond because I think even the same width tends to penalize longer drivers.

It also makes for boring golf if everyone has to lay back.

« **Reply #40 on:** January 10, 2007, 04:51:49 PM »

Mike - the point about wider fairways at great distances from the tee was one of the points Gary Player made in the excerpt i posted from the Sports Ill Masters preview a month or so ago ....

« **Reply #41 on:** January 10, 2007, 10:30:39 PM »

Many of the topics still repeat even with a limited group. I'm going to St. Andrews, Ireland, Myrtle Beach, Monterrey Peninsula, Orlando, etc. where should I play?

I've enjoyed some of the recent threads. Currently on the front page: George Pazin's series on Oakmont, B&W versus color photos, and the revered reviled and unknown.

« **Reply #42 on:** January 11, 2007, 10:27:47 AM »

As a newbie, I find this place fascinating and welcoming. I think you've all got a good thing going here.

« **Reply #43 on:** January 11, 2007, 10:37:43 AM »

Cassandra, I can't use the search function very well, but there is a long thread that is an introduction sort of thing where we say who we are, what we do, a little explanation of our interest in GCA and how we got there, etc.

Since we only have a small number of ladies here, it would be interesting to know more about you and how you come to this curiosity about GCA.

Thanks,
RJ D

« **Reply #44 on:** January 11, 2007, 10:57:05 AM »

Cassandra Burns?

Cassandra??

I'm not the sharpest tack in this box but it sounds like you must be one of only 2-3 women registered on this site. At least I hope you're a women (if I called you a girl would you think I'm an antideluvian ogre?) because if you aren't I sure as hell hope you can fight.

But since you must be a woman, that will mean that most of the rest of us unattractive and agressive males on here will have to all treat you like our little kid sister and defend you against even the slightest insult or rudeness from any wackos on here.

I'll tell you what, if anyone pisses you off on here, even a little bit, you just come to me and I'll take out my reliable .45 and shoot first and ask questions later.

OK?

« **Reply #45 on:** January 11, 2007, 11:00:56 AM »

Oh Tom...you're such a smoothie.

« **Reply #46 on:** January 11, 2007, 12:26:24 PM »

Quote from: RJ_Daley on January 11, 2007, 10:37:43 AM

Cassandra, I can't use the search function very well, but there is a long thread that is an introduction sort of thing where we say who we are, what we do, a little explanation of our interest in GCA and how we got there, etc.

Since we only have a small number of ladies here, it would be interesting to know more about you and how you come to this curiosity about GCA.

Thanks,
RJ D

As a noob to the site, I wouldn't mind posting to the above thread to let the crowd know who I am. I too find the search engine on this site a little difficult to use effectivly.

It is appropriate to just start a new one?

« **Reply #47 on:** January 11, 2007, 12:41:51 PM »

Hey Tom, I think I heard that Patrick pissed off Cassandra.

Or was that David Moriarty?

« **Reply #48 on:** January 11, 2007, 01:00:03 PM »

I've already shot them with my reliable .45 a bunch of times, JimN. Do you think I should shoot them again for failing to properly say howdeedo to Cassandra?

OK.

Patrick, you have more hot air flowing between your ears and outta yo mouth than an F-18's engines at Mach 3.

Moriarty, you are an idiotic buffoon-like liar who lives under low grimy bridges in scum filled water like the lowliest of troglodytes.

« **Reply #49 on:** January 11, 2007, 08:02:43 PM »

The word "inbred" used in this context makes me a little nauseous.

I think the concept you're looking for is "homophily" which I ran across for the first time in the NY Times Magazine "Year in Ideas" issue, Dec. 10

"In the 1950s, sociologists coined the term “homophily” — love of the same — to explain our inexorable tendency to link up with one another in ways that confirm rather than test our core beliefs."

That certainly is a danger here, but IMO the DG members are nowhere near congealing around a narrow set of beliefs. Even Fazio courses occasionally merit a positive comment.

Quote from: John Kirk on January 10, 2007, 11:56:57 AM

Golf course architecture is a finite subject...It's getting harder to delve further while keeping it interesting.

John, this suggestion should come as a big disappointment to the architects who apparently will spend the rest of their lives vainly attempting to bring a fresh idea to the profession.
This is like saying there is nothing more about particle physics that I need to know.

News:

Mike_Cirba

John Kavanaugh

ForkaB

Mike_Cirba

John Kavanaugh

Mike_Cirba

Brian Noser

Mike_Cirba

Cassandra Burns

Brian Noser

Mike_Cirba

Brian Noser

Mike_Cirba

John Kavanaugh

Mike_Cirba

PThomas

Bill Gayne

Cassandra Burns

RJ_Daley

TEPaul

Mike_Cirba

Kalen Braley

Jim Nugent

TEPaul

Eric_Terhorst