Shivas's cheater line

[Joe Hancock]

Shivas,

I agree with the way the line on the ball gets used. It just isn't right.

I also am against the yardage devices. I would almost rather not play than play with someone using that thing on every shot.

I'm against daily primping of bunkers.

I'm going to start a thread some day, using all these examples as to why I am not so sure that "growing the game" never was, nor never will be good for golf.

Joe

[Kevin_Reilly]

There are plently of aids on the equipment that are illegal.  That's why Pat Mucci brought up the paddle grip, which is illegal.  

Why is it legal to paint or draw an alignment line on your 2ball putter, but illegal to put an identical-appearing line on it using a thin strip of black tape?

[George Pazin]

George, the key difference is that the line on the putter actually has the effect of speeding up play, not slowing it down...

Now you're back to arguing about slow play, not the principle of the rule.

In any case, there really isn't anything else I can add to my position, so I'm bowing out.

[Patrick_Mucci]

George Pazin, et. al., except Shivas,

How do you reconcile that a golfer is not permitted to have his caddy or partner stand behind him to help him acquire the proper line when he's making a stroke on the putting green ?

How is the cheater line any different ?

[George Pazin]

One's a mark on your equipment, the other isn't.

Philosophically, I have a much bigger problem with a caddie lining up someone's putt than someone using an alignment aid on his equipment.

[Patrick_Mucci]

George,

I know the difference in the entities, what's the difference in the function ?

[Michael Moore]

Michael, what I'm saying is that his stated intent is sleight-of-hand bullshit.  It's not about the axis at all.  The axis is a means to an end.  He's placing the axis so that he can mark his line for putting.

My hypothetical golfer is a liar? That's the best you can do?

Yet another compelling aspect of the rules of golf is the manner in which an official begins to determine the the intent of a golfer - by asking him. Sometimes the golfer will tell you the truth, which is the case the scenario we are discussing. Did I forget to mention that? Sorry.

Pelz has demonstrated beyond any doubt that off-balance golf balls are a problem.

Are you telling me that it's totally out of the question for a golfer to want to remedy this problem?

[Joe Hancock]

Pelz has demonstrated beyond any doubt that off-balance golf balls are a problem.

I'm interested in when that study was done, and with which brand of balls.

Thanks,

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pelz has demonstrated beyond any doubt that off-balance golf balls are a problem.

Pelz's book was published in 1989 from data acquired prior to 1989, approximately 20 years prior to the introduction of today's golf balls.

Hardly a credible source for this discussion.[/color]

Are you telling me that it's totally out of the question for a golfer to want to remedy this problem ?

What problem ?

The problem that existed 20 years ago that doesn't exist today ?[/color]

[Joe Hancock]

Shiv,

I was politely giving Mr. Moore a chance to firm up his position with his own response. You and Pat had to go and shoot him in both feet, without Michael having any chance to do it himself....

Joe

[Michael Moore]

Shiv,

I was politely giving Mr. Moore a chance to firm up his position with his own response. You and Pat had to go and shoot him in both feet, without Michael having any chance to do it himself....

Joe

Joe -

I commend your civility and your open mind.

If by "shooting me in the foot" you mean that Pat has "obfuscated via willful ignorance", then I suppose you are correct. Pelz has published several books, dozens of articles, and numerous research papers, and it is transparently disingenuous to refer to "Pelz's book".

To answer your question, here is a passage from the Putting Bible which was published in June of 2000.

"Very few golf balls today are perfectly balanced. Where and how much off-balance a ball is controls in what direction and how far the ball will roll off-line. Sometines, the amount can be significant. This isn't Consumer Reports and I'm not writing a ball-by-ball evaluation of the golf ball industry. My tests show that most name-brand balls on the market are very nearly in balance. But they're not perfectly balanced."

A chart goes on to show how a ball whose geometric center and center of gravity differ by a mere .001 inches will have gone astray by 1.25 inches after 13 feet.

[Tom Birkert]

*Tiptoes in cautiously*...

What about drivers that have inbuilt alignment aids? Arrows that point the ball towards the fairway?

As mentioned previously, what about the two ball putter that projects the notional path of the ball?

What about those players who ground their putter in front of the ball on the line they intend to play the putt (Nick Price being a prime example)?

You are allowed to have gloves with markings on which indicate where to position the club.

You are allowed to have grips with markings on which show you where to place your hands.

You are allowed to use clubs which are engineered by rocket scientists to promote straighter shots.

Personally, I read the law in question as relating to a mark on the green (I don't know whether permanent marker had been invented at the time of the rule, I doubt it).

[JESII]

George Pazin, et. al., except Shivas,

How do you reconcile that a golfer is not permitted to have his caddy or partner stand behind him to help him acquire the proper line when he's making a stroke on the putting green ?

How is the cheater line any different ?

Because ultimately it comes down to the player hitting the shot on their own...with a cheater line you still have to trust that it's lined up properly (easier said than done, trust me) and hit the shot...with your caddy lining you up you do not have to trust alignment...

[George Pazin]

Joe, re: Pelz's test, he explains that he filled a small bucket with water and epsom salts, enough to make the ball float. Then he spun the ball in the water, and when it came to rest, he put a small dot on the side that finished up. He then spun the ball again, and if the same spot ended up facing up, it was clearly an unbalanced ball (though likely only the barest fraction off center, creating a heavy and a light side). If a different spot ended up facing up, then it was a perfectly balanced ball.

Today you can eactually buy a little machine that spins the ball for you, I don't even think they're that expensive.

He recommended saving the perfectly balanced balls for special occasions, and lining up the off balance ball in the manner MM initially stated, so that it would roll end over end, rather than being pulled off center.

I actually performed this test on one dozen of the early Strata balls. I came up with 3 or 4 perfectly balanced balls, the rest a little off. I never noticed anything regarding the performance of the balls in play, but I'm not exactly Iron Byron in the consistency arena.

I believe he has stated that today's balls test out MUCH better than the older balls for being perfectly balanced. Makes sense if you think about the imperfections of wound balls versus today's manufacturing processes. Wilson did introduce a ball a few years ago that was supposed to be the truest rolling ball (can't remember the details, I think Crenshaw was the most visible endorser, but it didn't last in the market).

[Kevin_Reilly]

Tom, none of that stuff is relevent because it's covered by the B & I rules.  Separate rules.  Except for the Nick Price example.  That's an interesting one, and I'd tell you that Rule 8-2(b) covers it because the player is clearly touching the intended line of the putt.  There must be something else that permits it or a Decision or something, because on it's face, it's a violation.

Nick Price, Dave Stockton and Kevin Reilly's method is permitted under Rule 16-1(a)(ii).  

[Jim Franklin]

So Shiv, I take it your case load is a little light this week?

[George Pazin]

That is one helluva post (pardon the blasohemy).

[Marty Bonnar]

Six pages over a one-inch line. GETALIFE!

FBD.

[Patrick_Mucci]

If by "shooting me in the foot" you mean that Pat has "obfuscated via willful ignorance", then I suppose you are correct.

Pelz has published several books, dozens of articles, and numerous research papers, and it is transparently disingenuous to refer to "Pelz's book".

No it's not.  
Most, if not everything he's written was based upon his tests.  Why don't you cite the date of the tests which supplied the data for the "several books, dozens of articles, and numerous research papers" you indicated he published.

Don't be suprised if the data comes from the same tests.

You referenced Pelz.  I referenced the year in which his definitive book was published and the fact that that data is about 20 years old and as such not credible today.[/color]

To answer your question, here is a passage from the Putting Bible which was published in June of 2000.

Published in 2000, based on data collected prior to 2000, data which is 8-10-20 years old.   Again, not a very credible source.[/color]

"Very few golf balls today are perfectly balanced.

Where and how much off-balance a ball is controls in what direction and how far the ball will roll off-line. Sometines, the amount can be significant. This isn't Consumer Reports and I'm not writing a ball-by-ball evaluation of the golf ball industry.

My tests show that most name-brand balls on the market are very nearly in balance.

But they're not perfectly balanced."

A chart goes on to show how a ball whose geometric center and center of gravity differ by a mere .001 inches will have gone astray by 1.25 inches after 13 feet.

What he doesn't tell you is how far a ball with a perfect geometric center and center of gravity will go astray after 13 feet.

What was the date of Pelz's most recent, definitive study ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

George Pazin, et. al., except Shivas,

How do you reconcile that a golfer is not permitted to have his caddy or partner stand behind him to help him acquire the proper line when he's making a stroke on the putting green ?

How is the cheater line any different ?

Because ultimately it comes down to the player hitting the shot on their own...with a cheater line you still have to trust that it's lined up properly (easier said than done, trust me) and hit the shot...with your caddy lining you up you do not have to trust alignment...

JES II,

Stay off the funny sauce, it's damaging your ability to think straight and reason logically.

Either that, or repost the above post under another name, a name like TEPaul.[/color]

[JR Potts]

This thread should be euthanized.

Congrats though Shivas, I can't stop laughing about this thread everytime I place my cheater line on the green now.  Granted, that laughter quickly turns to despair as my cheater line (shouldn't it be called a cheater mark to fit with your theory - sorry, I digressed) either is pointed in the wrong direction or my stroke did not permit the ball to roll in the anticipated cheating direction.

Anyone going to be in Vegas this weekend?

[Joe Hancock]

Shivas,

I'm switching. I now agree that if someone wants to use a cheater line, they should feel free to do so...especially in a match against me. I figure if they are that brainlocked that they can't hit a round white ball without all that crap going on in their head, I have a pretty good chance. I hope they have to mark, clean their ball and replace it for the one foot putt they have left for bogey too.

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joe Hancock,

While I might agree with your thinking, that's besides the point.

The point is that the rule seems to be in conflict with the practice.

And, the fact that your playing partner or caddy is prohibited from standing behind you when you putt to AID you with the line, would seem to support Shivas's contention.

The conflict between Form and Substance the issues here.

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

So when you come to Michigan in July, you won't be sporting any cheater lines?  

Joe

[JR Potts]

The caddy can stand behind you and work with your line but he must move prior to the stroke.  This is a separate rule.

Shivas is talking about marks....a word that doesn't contemplate a line on the ball.  

It's that simple.