Shivas's cheater line

« **Reply #700 on:** June 03, 2007, 05:55:53 PM »

Adam Clayman,

The margin of differentiation between placing a pipe next to your ball to aid in the determining of the line and the placing of a line on the ball to aid in determining of the line is immaterial.

It's the intent of the act that matters, not the efficiency of the act.

If you guys understood the rules better you wouldn't ask or raise these silly questions

« **Reply #701 on:** June 03, 2007, 06:16:01 PM »

Chris Brauner,

*My persepective.

I think golf is under siege, in a number of areas.

The ball, the equipment, etc., etc..

I don't know that the issue, which I feel is valid, would have sufficient priority attached to it.

An organization which administers or regulates interscholastic sports in the State of New York recently enacted rules prohibiting metal bats, primarily for saftey reasons, I believe.

The manufacturers are filing suit to prevent the ruling from taking effect.

While the USGA attempts/attempted to work with the manufacturers, I think it's a tenuous relationship at best.
Like a wild dog brought to domesticaion, I have no doubt that the manufacturers would turn on the USGA at the slightest provocation.

If the USGA is to remain the guiding light/force in golf, they've got to be proactive, and perhaps prohibiting marks on a ball to aid in the determination of the line, by the manufacturer or the player would be a good place to start.

The USGA already has justification for deciding in favor of the Shivas/Mucci concept, since 8-2 a and 8-2 b and the existing Decisions, as they're currently written, prohibit the practice of placing a mark or object for the purpose of aiding in determining the line of a putt.

When I look back at Sam Snead and his croquet style of putting, which the USGA banned, and the Paddle Grip for putters, which the USGA banned, in the context of the USGA permiting Belly putters and Long Putters, the use of rangefinders, GPS systems, etc., etc.., I really question whether the USGA has the appetite and the resolve to implement some, if not many, of the changes that might be in the best interest of the game.

I may send a letter to the USGA asking them to consider banning the practice, it depends upon how much time I can devote to the pursuit, in light of other issues in my life.

I'd still like to know the rationale behind the banning of the Paddle grip on putters

« **Reply #702 on:** June 03, 2007, 07:24:11 PM »

"It's not the "one ball condition", it IS the "one ball RULE".
Let me explain why you're wrong.
When the committee elects to place the one ball RULE into effect, the language, as provided in Appendix I in the rules of golf, 1 c. i, is incorporated into the RULES of GOLF as DIRECTED by the USGA, as a Note to Rule 5-1, and as such, it becomes a Rule, under 5-1 in the Rules of golf.
I hope that clarifies the matter for you."

Patrick:

Allow me to quote the "One Ball Condition":

Appendix 1, Part C (Conditions of Competition), 1c (One Ball Condition);

"If it is desired to prohibit changing brands and types of golf balls during a stipulated round, the following CONDITION is recommended:"

Therefore, "Conditions" of competition are optional to a committee, meaning a committee can adopt them or not adopt them if they so choose. A committee does not have the option of not adopting a Rule of golf----eg:

Rule 33 (The Committee)
Rule 33-1 (Conditions; Waiving Rule)

"The COMMITTEE must establish the conditions under which a competition is to be played."

"The COMMITTEE has no power to waive a Rule of Golf."

Therefore, a "Condition" of competition is not the same thing as a Rule of Golf.
Despite that fact a number of imprecise people like yourself call the "One Ball Condition" the "One Ball Rule" but that doesn't make the "One Ball Condition" a Rule of Golf. It's merely a "Condition of Competition" that can be adopted by a committee if they choose to adopt it.

Furthermore, this should make a "condition" as opposed to a "Rule" of Golf even clearer to you if you read Appendix 1, Part C ("Conditions of Competition);

"Rule 33-1 provides, "The COMMITTEE must establish the conditions under which a competition is to be played." These conditions should include many matters such as method of entry, eligibility, number of rounds to be played etc., that it is not appropriate to deal with in the Rules of Golf or this appendix. Detailed information regarding these conditions is provided in "Decisions on the Rules of Golf" under Rule 33-1 and in "How to Conduct a Competition."

However, there are a number of matters that might be covered in the "Conditions of Competition" to which the Committee's attention is specifically drawn. These are:"

I hope that clears up the matter for you.

« **Reply #703 on:** June 03, 2007, 07:49:27 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on June 03, 2007, 07:24:11 PM

"It's not the "one ball condition", it IS the "one ball RULE".
Let me explain why you're wrong.
When the committee elects to place the one ball RULE into effect, the language, as provided in Appendix I in the rules of golf, 1 c. i, is incorporated into the RULES of GOLF as DIRECTED by the USGA, as a Note to Rule 5-1, and as such, it becomes a Rule, under 5-1 in the Rules of golf.
I hope that clarifies the matter for you."

Patrick:

Allow me to quote the "One Ball Condition":

Appendix 1, Part C (Conditions of Competition), 1c (One Ball Condition);

"If it is desired to prohibit changing brands and types of golf balls during a stipulated round, the following CONDITION is recommended:"
"*Limitation on Balls Used During Round:
( Note to Rule 5-1)

TEPaul, why did you leave out the above language ? Language which immediately follows the word "recommended".

That language dictates that 1. c. (i) be incorporated into Rule 5-1, and as such, part of the Rules of Golf.
[/color]

« **Reply #704 on:** June 03, 2007, 08:18:15 PM »

Patrick Mucci said:

"The USGA already has justification for deciding in favor of the Shivas/Mucci concept, since 8-2 a and 8-2 b and the existing Decisions, as they're currently written, prohibit the practice of placing a mark or object for the purpose of aiding in determining the line of a putt."

Patrick:

Apparently there seems to be no possibility that you're capable of seeing any interpretation other than your own, and even despite the fact that the R&A/USGA interpretation on this putting practice has been completely proven to you.

Perhaps you two overbearing clowns think there is no interpretation in Rule 8 as it is written other than to ban this putting practice but isn't it interesting that the R&A and the USGA who wrote that Rule AND the Decisions pertaining to it do not agree with you at this time and never have? Their interpretation via Rule 8 and any Decisions pertaining to it is that it should not be a violation of Rule 8 AT THIS TIME.

What either of you or both of you should do is write up a proposal to the USGA that this putting practice should be a violation of Rule 8 and submit it to them. There certainly is a possibility that they might agree with you and make it a violation of Rule 8 in the future.

A word of advice:

You probably won't get their undivided attention if your proposal informs them they should make this practice a violation of Rule 8 SIMPLY BECAUSE the wording they've been using for twenty years is poorly written.

But you might get their attention and support for your proposal if you mention that in reality there may not be much difference between a line on a golf ball and a line on a putting green as either constitutes "assistance" (Rule 14-2) in the making of a stroke or that such a marking on a golf ball constitutes an "artificial Device" or "Unusual Equipment" (Rule 14-3).

You should also throw into your proposal that it appears in recent years that this putting practice is becoming increasingly popular and is undeniably contributing to slower play and can be expected to continue that trend.

The latter is an old standby that generally gets their attention.

What the Hell, I'll even be glad to help you with a proposal to this effect, not because I personally believe it's much of an issue but there is the possiblity that they might.

Let me ask you something Patrick. Have you ever made a formal written proposal to the USGA that they should CHANGE a RULE of Golf and if you have what was it?

« **Reply #705 on:** June 03, 2007, 08:41:49 PM »

""*Limitation on Balls Used During Round:
( Note to Rule 5-1)

TEPaul, why did you leave out the above language ? Language which immediately follows the word "recommended".

That language dictates that 1. c. (i) be incorporated into Rule 5-1, and as such, part of the Rules of Golf."

Patrick:

App. 1 Part C, 1c (i) does not dictate that its language be incorporated into Rule 5 at all. The Note in Rule 5 says; "A Committee MAY require, in the conditions of competition.....". The word "MAY" in the language of golf's Rules denotes an option. The words "SHALL" or "MUST" denote a requirement---ie no option.

A "condition" of competition is optional to a committee, a Rule of Golf is not. Can you understand the difference?

The "Note" in Rule 5-1 directs the reader to Rule 33-1 and to the "Conditions of Competition" (Appendix 1, Part C). Rule 33 is the Rule entitled "The Committee". Rule 33-1 SPECIFICALLY says the committee must establish the conditions under which a competition is to be played. The "Conditions of Competitions" in the Rule Book in Appendix 1, Part C SPECIFICALLY says the committee has the option of adopting various "conditions" of competition.

But Rule 33-1 also SPECIFICALLY says "The COMMITTEE has NO POWER to waive a Rule of Golf."

How can something such as a "CONDITION" of competition be optional to a COMMITTEE, and therefore synonymous with a RULE of Golf if they have no power to waive it----eg NOT ADOPT IT as they CANNOT do with a RULE of Golf??

This isn't rocket science Patrick, it's patently clear as written.

I know, I know, it's hard for you and Shivas because it isn't all written on the same page. Welcome to the real world of Rules interpretation.

« **Reply #706 on:** June 03, 2007, 09:25:41 PM »

Is this officially the longest thread in history?

« **Reply #707 on:** June 03, 2007, 10:02:13 PM »

It is. $:-\$

« **Reply #708 on:** June 03, 2007, 10:04:44 PM »

But in the end it may effect how millions of golfers can replace their golf balls for the purpose of putting.

« **Reply #709 on:** June 03, 2007, 10:05:05 PM »

TEPaul,

The word "may" only relates to whether or not the committee wants to implement the one ball rule. They are under no obligation to do so, however, I've never competed in a USGA competition, since the implementation of the one ball rule, where it wasn't in effect.

I also understand functional equivalency.

If you read one of the Decisions relative to 8-2, 8-2a/2,
the USGA's intent is clear, they don't want aids that assist with determining the line.

I see no difference between the functional equivalency of the pipe in 8-2a/2 and a straight line drawn on the ball.

I would think that the USGA would embrace a rule that speeds up play AND maintains the spirit of 8-2a/2.

« **Reply #710 on:** June 03, 2007, 10:16:36 PM »

Quote from: Ryan Potts on June 01, 2007, 10:37:40 PM

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on June 01, 2007, 10:25:47 PM
Ryan Potts,

How do you feel about the rule prohibiting the use of a pipe or a club, placed near the ball, to aid in determining the line of the putt ?

If you think those are dumb rules, then your thinking is consistent, but, if you feel that those are valid rules, then your thinking that marking and aligning your ball for the same purpose is OK, is contradictory. How do you reconcile those contradictory positions ?

How do I reconcile those?

One involves a club or alignment device uninvolved in the stroke. The other (latter) is pivotal to the stroke.

The line on the ball is uninvolved in the stroke.

"A "stroke" is the forward movement of the club made with the INTENTION of striking the ball,...."

Functionally, the line on the ball serves the same purpose as the pipe next to the ball, namely, to aid in determining the line, which is outlined in Decision 8-2a/2[/color]

That distinction cannot be ignored.

There is NO distinction, the acts are identical, both attempt to aid in determining the line, only the method/implement used varies.[/color]

« **Reply #711 on:** June 03, 2007, 10:18:36 PM »

"TEPaul,
The word "may" only relates to whether or not the committee wants to implement the one ball rule. They are under no obligation to do so, however, I've never competed in a USGA competition, since the implementation of the one ball rule, where it wasn't in effect."

That's true, the USGA has apparently adopted the "One Ball Condition" for all its competitions since the "One Ball Condition" was included in App 1, Part C. But the R&A/USGA does not write the Rules of Golf only for their own competitions and that's why the "One Ball Condition" is a "Condition" of Competition" that's optional in the purview of "The Committee" (Rule 33) and not a "Rule" of golf which isn't optional in the purview of the "Committee".

« **Reply #712 on:** June 03, 2007, 10:47:02 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on June 03, 2007, 10:16:36 PM

Quote from: Ryan Potts on June 01, 2007, 10:37:40 PM
Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on June 01, 2007, 10:25:47 PM
Ryan Potts,

How do you feel about the rule prohibiting the use of a pipe or a club, placed near the ball, to aid in determining the line of the putt ?

If you think those are dumb rules, then your thinking is consistent, but, if you feel that those are valid rules, then your thinking that marking and aligning your ball for the same purpose is OK, is contradictory. How do you reconcile those contradictory positions ?

How do I reconcile those?

One involves a club or alignment device uninvolved in the stroke. The other (latter) is pivotal to the stroke.

The line on the ball is uninvolved in the stroke.

"A "stroke" is the forward movement of the club made with the INTENTION of striking the ball,...."

Functionally, the line on the ball serves the same purpose as the pipe next to the ball, namely, to aid in determining the line, which is outlined in Decision 8-2a/2[/color]

That distinction cannot be ignored.

There is NO distinction, the acts are identical, both attempt to aid in determining the line, only the method/implement used varies.[/color]

Come on, you know better than that.

A shot involves three things....the club, the ball and the golfer. Under the rules, the club can have alignment aids as long as they are part of the club and the ball can have alignment aids as long as they are part of the ball.

The golfer is a separately regulated entity. You are talking about using an outside, physical implement to align the golfer. I think the rules are crystal clear on that as the alignment of the golfer is by far, the most pivotal and most complex skill. One can use a cheater line on a driver and a cheater line on a putter and a cheater line on the ball....and still be totally misaligned. The USGA recognizes that and thus, makes the distincition between a mark that is part of the equipment, and a mark that external to the equipment and thus, not part of the stroke.

Early apology for the grammer and spelling....a little too much vino tonight.

« **Reply #713 on:** June 03, 2007, 10:54:37 PM »

Ryan:

Good post. Actually vino makes one particularly smart.

Not that it matters much to your point or argument but I should remind you again that a golf ball in play under the Rules of Golf is not considered to be "Equipment" under the Rules of Golf's definition of "Equipment".

« **Reply #714 on:** June 03, 2007, 11:06:23 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on June 03, 2007, 10:54:37 PM

Ryan:

Good post. Actually vino makes one particularly smart.

Not that it matters much to your point or argument but I should remind you again that a golf ball in play under the Rules of Golf is not considered to be "Equipment" under the Rules of Golf's definition of "Equipment".

Okay, please replace equipment with "necessary components to make a stroke."

« **Reply #715 on:** June 04, 2007, 12:36:25 AM »

Patrick Mucci...this thread is SO OFF topic!

Stick to architeture please!!!!

Hypocrite

« **Reply #716 on:** June 04, 2007, 02:50:01 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on June 02, 2007, 10:40:35 AM

Quote from: Bryan Izatt on June 02, 2007, 03:15:47 AM
Patrick and Shivas,

I know you will have different answers to this, but can you explain how lines (I refuse to use your pejorative term, because it is not cheating under the current rules) on the ball violate the spirit of the game, if the spirit is as stated by the USGA, below.

In the same fashion that standing behind the player to aid him in determining the line violates the spirit of the game.

Picking another example does not constitute an answer. Pick either this one or the line on the ball and explain the violation of the spirit.

That practice was fully within the rules for some time, until the USGA saw the light and banned it.

I've asked you numerous times to tell me the FUNCTIONAL difference between placing a pipe or placing a club next to your ball to aid in determining the line of a putt and placing a line on your ball to aid in determining the line of a putt, and to date YOU"VE FAILED to address that critical issue.

Actually, you've never asked ME this question. You've asked Tom, Rich and Adam, but not me.

WHY ?

BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T ASK; and, because it's a red herring. Do you align your feet with the line of your putt? Should that also not be illegal? Do you read a line and select a pre-existing natural mark on the green to align your putt? Why shouldn't that be banned too? Why is placing a mark wrong, but using one that's already there right?

Is it inconsiderate of other players? How so?

Is it undisciplined? How so?

Is it discourteous? How so?

Is it unsportsmanlike? How so?

Or by the spirit of the game are you intending to say the way things used to be done in the good old days?

YOU JUST DON'T GET IT.

I guess not, since you can't explain it.

Have someone explain it to you.

I asked you to explain it because it's your point, but you can't seem to explain it. Why would I get someone else to explain it if you can't.

But, whatever you do, address the issue of functionality, if you can.

WHY? You don't answer my questions.

But, to humour you, functionality is one of those nice new computer words. Perhaps you meant functional. Is the use of a line on the ball functional? In other words, does the use of the line work? I'm not convinced it does to any material degree. Or maybe you meant is the intent the same, i.e. to align your stroke with the line you have picked out for the putt? I suppose the intent is the same. But then the USGA doesn't agree with me because they explicitly permit it under the decisions and the FAQ's. Maybe because they don't think it's functional.

Quote from: Chris Brauner on June 01, 2007, 11:42:53 AM
Tom & Patrick,

Just today I got one of those USGA mass emails which contained a section called "The Spirit of the Game". Here's what it said:

Quote
The Spirit of the Game

Unlike many sports, golf is played, for the most part, without the supervision of a referee or umpire. The game relies on the integrity of the individual to show consideration for other players and to abide by the Rules. All players should conduct themselves in a disciplined manner, demonstrating courtesy and sportsmanship at all times, irrespective of how competitive they may be. This is the spirit of the game of golf.

I posted that excerpt long before Chris found it.

Perhaps you did. I'm not going to go back to check it out. I see your ferocious competitiveness carries over into your need for recognition.

« **Reply #717 on:** June 04, 2007, 03:00:42 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on June 02, 2007, 10:33:02 AM

Quote from: Bryan Izatt on June 02, 2007, 03:00:54 AM
Patrick,

How does the line on the ball aid in "determining" the line of the putt. Surely determining the line of the putt is a skill that the player (and/or their caddy) possess to varying degrees. As Adam points out, there can be multiple lines that will work for a putt based on the pace of the putt (excepting, of course, the perfectly straight putt). The line on the ball doesn't help determine the line of the putt. At best it might help the player putt on the line he has determined with his green-reading skills.

You know, you may have a point.
Maybe all those PGA Tour guys are really trying to differentiate "True" North from "Magnetic" North.
You must be either kidding or desperate.[/color]

Is that the best you can do Patrick, another condescending non-answer?

« **Reply #718 on:** June 04, 2007, 03:14:49 AM »

Patrick,

After 974 posts on this thread, you've agreed that the lines are legal under the current rules, decisions and FAQs. Rather than continuing to try to win us over to your side, why don't you try to win over the USGA. It would have taken less time than you've expended on this thread alone.

It's really quite simple. Amend the rule with one sentence. "On the green, the player must not place any configuration of markings on their ball along their intended line of putt." Rescind the decision. Remove the FAQ from the web-site.

I don't get the impression that anyone on here would be terribly put off if that rule change were to happen. It might be tough to police, but as you say we're all honourable gentleman.

As a side thought, do you actually ever have fun playing the game? It must be tough being ferociously competitive, worrying about your (casual) competitors optimizing balls by hole, competitors aligning lines on putts, having to use new-fangled equipment to stay competitive, slow play, worrying about runaway technology, balls that fly forever, classic courses being desecrated daily, longer more expensive courses, balls that can't be worked, architecture that can't be interfaced with, and on and on.

« **Reply #719 on:** June 04, 2007, 08:14:19 AM »

"One can use a cheater line on a driver and a cheater line on a putter and a cheater line on the ball....and still be totally misaligned. The USGA recognizes that and thus, makes the distincition between a mark that is part of the equipment, and a mark that external to the equipment and thus,......"

Ryan:

That's a very good statement.

If the USGA were to consider making this putting practice a Rule violation that is where they'd probably begin----with the definitions of "Equipment", the "Ball in Play" etc. What falls within those two definitions is essentially what they have "excepted" from being a violation of Rule 8-2b.

And why is that? Why did they except those two areas of definition in the Rules?

Obviously, they either don't consider those two areas to be areas where a mark or line can be considered an "artificial device" or "unusual equipment" that can be of functional "assistance" in the making of a stroke or they feel if they did consider them to be it would be very difficult to regulate practically.

But what if, for whatever reason, they did decide to make this basic putting practice of aligning a mark or line on a golf ball or a mark or line on a putter head for the purpose of indicating a line for putting a violation?

How would they go about it?

They could do that by making "equipment" or the "Ball in Play" with marks or lines on it "non-conforming" in Appendix III of the Rules of Golf or they could not do that and make the practice itself of a golfer actually aligning a mark or line on "Equipment" or the "Ball in Play" a violation.

Attempting to do the former would be difficult as they'd have to get the manufacturers to conform in production and they would obviously need some strict definitions in the Rules of Golf of what did and didn't constitute a mark or line.

Perhaps more difficult would be a strict definition in the Rules of Golf about what kind of player "identification" mark constituted a "non-conforming" golf ball in play.

If they did none of that via "Equipment" or "The Ball" (in play) and just made the actual practice a violation where would they draw the line on that? If an opponent or fellow competitor or Rules Official noticed a player replace his ball on the putting green and look from his ball down his intended line a time or two would that constitute lining up some mark to indicate a line for putting and be a violation of a Rule?

I think we can begin to see why one of the top Rules experts said to make this line or mark thing on a golf ball or putter head a violation of the Rules or to make the use of same to indicate the line for putting is impractical to regulate.

There is another avenue that no one has thought of on here to my knowledge that does not fall within either Rule 8 or 14 or 20, and that would be to make this practice if it was excessively time consuming a violation of Rule 6-7.

It is not infrequent that the Rulesmakers completely surprise us in how and why they come at some problem. There's no doubt in my mind that they are not oblivious to this increasingly popular putting practice and there's not much doubt to me either that the thing that disturbs them most is it's contributing to slower play.

But if they tried to combat it through Rule 6-7 how would that be regulated practically? Rules officials have the ability to time players and call 6-7 penalties on them but I'm not sure what players and opponents and fellow competitors can do in that vein other than to appeal to a Rules official during the course of play.

Essentially this putting practice would just be very difficult to regulate in practice no matter what they tried to do, and at the end of the day that may be the real reason they treat it as an exception to Rule 8-2b or Rule 14 or Rule 20, and why it has never been a violation of a Rule of Golf.

« **Reply #720 on:** June 04, 2007, 11:15:23 AM »

OK guys, if this is gonna be illegal, they better make a damn rule change and quick. Because I have an update about my 9 year old son....

We were doing a little putting game yesterday, and all was well, until he abrubtly stopped and ran to his bag... me: "what are you doing?" Him: "I forgot, I need my special putting ball."

You got it... it's a Nike ball mentioned way way back in this thread, the one with little squares and arrows on it, created FOR JUNIOR GOLFERS.

It was very very difficult to explain to him that this was against any spirit of any rule or any way to play the game. To him, if Nike put it there and the rules say it's OK, it's OK to use.

And use it he did, no matter what I said.

Worst case scenario happened, also: he putted BETTER with it, and damn well beat me in our 9 hole game.

The fate of young golfers hangs in the balance here. See, I get that it's not really what golfers should be doing. I see the logic thjat Shivas puts out. But so long as that FAQ exists and the rules aren't changed - and they see pro after pro using these lines on TV - it's gonna be damn hard to tell kids like my son, and other golfers really, that they shouldn't be doing this.

BTW, he did it pretty quickly... he still putted a lot faster on the overall than a LOT of over-line-reading and glacial pre-putt routine adults I know.

TH

ps - Shivas - congrats on taking over #1 spot. I think.

« **Reply #721 on:** June 04, 2007, 11:30:50 AM »

Quote from: Bryan Izatt on June 04, 2007, 03:14:49 AM

Patrick,

After 974 posts on this thread, you've agreed that the lines are legal under the current rules, decisions and FAQs.

Bryan,

I knew that at the outset and stated same several times.
But, I do feel that it conflicts with the spirit of the game, slows down the game and should be prohibited.[/color]

Rather than continuing to try to win us over to your side, why don't you try to win over the USGA. It would have taken less time than you've expended on this thread alone.

With the assistance of another contributor to this site, I'm going to make a formal approach to the USGA on the issue.

Time is an issue, I'm also writing a book for patients diagnosed with colo-rectal cancer, and have other interests, including, but not limited to a family, business, playing golf, charitable causes, etc., etc.. I know that I must get my formal presentation to the USGA well in advance of January, 2008. Hopefully, it will get done in the next month or two.[/color]

It's really quite simple. Amend the rule with one sentence. "On the green, the player must not place any configuration of markings on their ball along their intended line of putt." Rescind the decision. Remove the FAQ from the web-site.

I agree, it is quite simple, even if the language in 8-2 remained as is, with a decision clarifying the issue.[/color]

I don't get the impression that anyone on here would be terribly put off if that rule change were to happen. It might be tough to police, but as you say we're all honourable gentleman.

Those that use it would be put off, but, I'm not concerned about the policing effort because I believe that golfers want to abide by the rules.[/color]

As a side thought, do you actually ever have fun playing the game?

I have more fun than you could imagine.
But, don't take my word for it, ask Ran Morrissett, TEPaul, Mike Sweeney, Geoff Childs, Dave Moriarty, Lynn Shackleford, Gib Papazian, Tommy Naccarato, Tom Huckaby, Gene Greco, his son Chris and others who have played with me. If I didn't have a LOT, an awful LOT of fun, I wouldn't play the game.[/color]

It must be tough being ferociously competitive,
Not at all, it's in my blood, it's in my genes.
It's part of my fabric, and, it saved my life.

As stated in Section I Etiquette of the USGA Rules of golf, I conduct myself in a disciplined manner, demonstrating courtesy and sportsmanship, along with a lot of humor, at all times, irrespective of how competitive I may be.[/color]

worrying about your (casual) competitors optimizing balls by hole, competitors aligning lines on putts, having to use new-fangled equipment to stay competitive, slow play, worrying about runaway technology, balls that fly forever, classic courses being desecrated daily, longer more expensive courses, balls that can't be worked, architecture that can't be interfaced with, and on and on.

I don't worry about them at all.
I observe and note, but, what, me worry ?
Not about those things.[/color]

« **Reply #722 on:** June 04, 2007, 11:30:59 AM »

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on June 04, 2007, 11:15:23 AM

ps - Shivas - congrats on taking over #1 spot. I think.

Completely rigged...is there a "notifier feature" to let one know when someone makes the 999th post?

« **Reply #723 on:** June 04, 2007, 11:39:51 AM »

Quote from: Bryan Izatt on June 04, 2007, 03:00:42 AM

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on June 02, 2007, 10:33:02 AM
Quote from: Bryan Izatt on June 02, 2007, 03:00:54 AM
Patrick,

How does the line on the ball aid in "determining" the line of the putt. Surely determining the line of the putt is a skill that the player (and/or their caddy) possess to varying degrees. As Adam points out, there can be multiple lines that will work for a putt based on the pace of the putt (excepting, of course, the perfectly straight putt). The line on the ball doesn't help determine the line of the putt. At best it might help the player putt on the line he has determined with his green-reading skills.

You know, you may have a point.
Maybe all those PGA Tour guys are really trying to differentiate "True" North from "Magnetic" North.
You must be either kidding or desperate.[/color]

Is that the best you can do Patrick, another condescending non-answer?

Not at all, but, it was the first thing to spontaneously jump into my mind when I saw the absurd question.

The "line" is the path that the golfer wants his ball to follow based on his decision as to how he's going to execute his stroke.

That line extends from the hole, back to the ball.

The line on the ball aids in reconfirming and translating the mental picture of the line into a physical, visual signal and directional aid.

You continue to refuse to answer the question regarding the functional equivalency of a pipe placed next to a ball for the purpose of aiding in determining the line and a line ON the ball for the purpose of aiding in determining the line.

You know that the former is clearly a violation of the rules, so why wouldn't the latter be a violation as well ?[/color]

« **Reply #724 on:** June 04, 2007, 11:50:59 AM »

There have been a lot of pages since I last read this thread, but my question is, if a line is defined as something straight (point A to point B), then the cheater line is only cheating if you have a straight putt. Yes? Most putts have some break so the "cheater line" only indicates path of putt, not line.

News:

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

TEPaul

Brock Peyer

TEPaul

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

JR Potts

TEPaul

JR Potts

Craig Sweet

Bryan Izatt

Bryan Izatt

Bryan Izatt

TEPaul

Tom Huckaby

Patrick_Mucci

Mark Bourgeois

Patrick_Mucci

Jim Franklin