Shivas's cheater line

[JESII]

Shivas,

Agree that judgement is, and should be, a key fundamental.

Disagree that the cheater-line erodes ones judgement...it may shift the judgement while over the ball away from what I do (which is pick a spot within a couple feet of my ball to line my putter face up to) towards aligning your clubface perpendicularly with the line.

The main issue with your deal is that it's not guaranteed you can get your face lined up with the line comfortably...my evidence is that I tried it for a couple of months years ago and got so frustrated with the effort I stopped.

[Tom Huckaby]

shivas:

Yes, judgment is eroding - it rather always has in this game compared to shepherds playing with sticks and rocks.  But I'm with Sully re the cheater line - I don't think in the end it really does help.  And re rangefinders, the distance marking genie is so far out of the bottle, let people use these if it makes them go faster - and I believe on the net it does.

TH

[Kalen Braley]

It'd sure be nice to do one of those studies about now. 

You know: Several players with varying handicaps, hitting short, medium, and long putts, putts that are relativly straight and big breakers.  Would be interesting to see the results.

I suspect the cheater line helps a lot less, if any on the big breakers where both speed and line are critical.

[Tom Huckaby]

Kalen, when you strike it rich, you can fund all these studies and put these esoteric issues to rest.  That will be your contribution to the golf world.  You'lll also make shivas a richer man as he could actually bill to clients the countless hours of time he has spent on these esoteric issues.

 

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen, when you strike it rich, you can fund all these studies and put these esoteric issues to rest.  That will be your contribution to the golf world.  You'lll also make shivas a richer man as he could actually bill to clients the countless hours of time he has spent on these esoteric issues.

 

LOL....

I know I know...why can't we live in a perfect world where useless, meaningless golf related studies can get federal gov't grants!! 

Still would be interesting to know though how much advantage is gained.  Maybe I'll have to start playing the lotto so I can finance this and other GCA.com forum urban myths! 

[Ted Kramer]

I'm just imagining two sheppards playing an old form of golf. One of the sheppards gets his ball on the green and while replacing it, he starts moving it around, twisting it back and forth, lining it up with the hole. . .

What do you think the other sheppard thinks and or says?

Here is my guess:

"what the fuck are you doing? Put the ball down and hit it."

-Ted

PS
Please don't tell me that cleaning the ball and replacing it was only a part of golf after sheppards weren't playing the game with sticks anymore . . . I'm just trying to make a point. The Cheater Line shouldn't be legal. It just shouldn't be part of the game. I'm shocked that so many people don't see it this way. I'm not saying that it isn't legal based on the decisions that exist today. But I am saying that IT SHOULD NOT BE LEGAL.

[Tom Huckaby]

I could be talked into rangefinders if it could be proven that they speed play.  That's a "lesser of two evils" sort of analysis.  But it would have to be really strong proof.  I'm still convinced that any gizmo you hand a golfer other than a club, ball and tee slows down play.

Cool, at least you do see the logic.

I can't see how one would prove it... wow think about the methodology of the test.  It can't be to give everyone rangefinders, because that's not reality... and yes, in that case play would slow, due to the general "give them a gadget and it slows things down" that Dan stated so many times.  The point is that not everyone uses these things, and really never will.  Thus I just do continue to firmly believe the logic I presented in the other thread is sound - one considers who is really using these things and it becomes pretty clear.  But of course I cannot prove it.

TH

ps to Ted - sure it should be illegal.  But in the end, isn't this all much ado over pretty much nothing?  Those who want alignment aids will always find a way, line or no line.

[Ted Kramer]

I could be talked into rangefinders if it could be proven that they speed play.  That's a "lesser of two evils" sort of analysis.  But it would have to be really strong proof.  I'm still convinced that any gizmo you hand a golfer other than a club, ball and tee slows down play.

Cool, at least you do see the logic.

I can't see how one would prove it... wow think about the methodology of the test.  It can't be to give everyone rangefinders, because that's not reality... and yes, in that case play would slow, due to the general "give them a gadget and it slows things down" that Dan stated so many times.  The point is that not everyone uses these things, and really never will.  Thus I just do continue to firmly believe the logic I presented in the other thread is sound - one considers who is really using these things and it becomes pretty clear.  But of course I cannot prove it.

TH

ps to Ted - sure it should be illegal.  But in the end, isn't this all much ado over pretty much nothing?  Those who want alignment aids will always find a way, line or no line.

So let them cheat in order to have their way.
If they want to cheat, then that is on them.

-Ted

[Tom Huckaby]

Ted - they'd certainly find a way to do it without cheating.

In any case, shivas has covered all this.  In the end I am rather with each of you in how this should be.  I just don't find it nearly enough of an issue to devote pages and pages of rhetoric to, coming up every few months...

TH

[Ted Kramer]

I'm just imagining two sheppards playing an old form of golf. One of the sheppards gets his ball on the green and while replacing it, he starts moving it around, twisting it back and forth, lining it up with the hole. . .

What do you think the other sheppard thinks and or says?

Here is my guess:

"what the fuck are you doing? Put the ball down and hit it."

-Ted

PS
Please don't tell me that cleaning the ball and replacing it was only a part of golf after sheppards weren't playing the game with sticks anymore . . . I'm just trying to make a point. The Cheater Line shouldn't be legal. It just shouldn't be part of the game. I'm shocked that so many people don't see it this way. I'm not saying that it isn't legal based on the decisions that exist today. But I am saying that IT SHOULD NOT BE LEGAL.

Actually now I'm imagining those 2 sheppards on the first tee before the match. And one sheppard pulls out a sharpie and starts drawing a long straight line on his ball. The other sheppard says, "hey whats that for"? And the line drawing sheppard says, "when my ball is on the green I use this line to help me aim".

What do you think the other sheppard's repsonse is?
Here is my guess:

"Get the fuck out of here. Now wipe that off your ball. Moron"

-Ted

[Kalen Braley]

Actually now I'm imagining those 2 sheppards on the first tee before the match. And one sheppard pulls out a sharpie and starts drawing a long straight line on his ball. The other sheppard says, "hey whats that for"? And the line drawing sheppard says, "when my ball is on the green I use this line to help me aim".

What do you think the other sheppard's repsonse is?
Here is my guess:

"Get the fuck out of here. Now wipe that off your ball. Moron"

-Ted

Ted,

I really love your analogys...they are very eloquently done and put a really good visual in my head.

But just to play devils advocate, wouldn't the same Shepard also call his buddy to the carpet if he pulled out a long putter for his short putts.

I can see it now:

Sheperd A:  "What the hell is that long stick in your bag fer?"
Sheperd B:  "It really helps with my short putts when I can't settle my nerves and get a bit jumpy"
Sheperd A:  "Toss that fucking thing back in your wagon....<muttering under his breath> Douchebag.." 

  

[Ted Kramer]

Actually now I'm imagining those 2 sheppards on the first tee before the match. And one sheppard pulls out a sharpie and starts drawing a long straight line on his ball. The other sheppard says, "hey whats that for"? And the line drawing sheppard says, "when my ball is on the green I use this line to help me aim".

What do you think the other sheppard's repsonse is?
Here is my guess:

"Get the fuck out of here. Now wipe that off your ball. Moron"

-Ted

Ted,

I really love your analogys...they are very eloquently done and put a really good visual in my head.

But just to play devils advocate, wouldn't the same Shepard also call his buddy to the carpet if he pulled out a long putter for his short putts.

I can see it now:

Sheperd A:  "What the hell is that long stick in your bag fer?"
Sheperd B:  "It really helps with my short putts when I can't settle my nerves and get a bit jumpy"
Sheperd A:  "Toss that fucking thing back in your wagon....<muttering under his breath> Douchebag.." 

  

Agree 100%.

[Tom Huckaby]

Guys, if we're gonna base this on how those shepherds play the game, better go get yourself some hickories and gutties...

By this I mean, those are all pithy observations, but how much real-world application today do they really have?  Where do you draw the line?

Those shepherds would look at your graphite-shafted, melon-headed driver and either puke or implode.

TH

[Kalen Braley]

I tend to disagree Tom,

Sheperd B pulls out a shiny 44 inch, graphite shaft, Big Bertha and stripes it right down the middle.
Sheperd A's response would be:  "What a blast off the tee, where can I find me one of those laddy?"
Sheperd B retorts: "I could tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya"

See Tom it works just fine  

[Tom Huckaby]

I tend to disagree Tom,

Sheperd B pulls out a shiny 44 inch, graphite shaft, Big Bertha and stripes it right down the middle.
Sheperd A's response would be:  "Where can I find me one of those laddy?"
Sheperd B retorts: "I could tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya"

See Tom it works just fine   

LOL
So we've moved on to pithy.  Good lord I can live with that.  The sooner this issue gets the Kevorkian the better off we will all be.

[Kalen Braley]

I tend to disagree Tom,

Sheperd B pulls out a shiny 44 inch, graphite shaft, Big Bertha and stripes it right down the middle.
Sheperd A's response would be:  "Where can I find me one of those laddy?"
Sheperd B retorts: "I could tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya"

See Tom it works just fine   

LOL
So we've moved on to pithy.  Good lord I can live with that.  The sooner this issue gets the Kevorkian the better off we will all be.

Hey I figured this thread could use some pithy too, Lord knows its got just about everything else on it.

And if I strike it the Kevorkian blow, then I'd be a GCA.com legend because I don't know what else will kill it.  34 pages and counting!!!

[Peter Pallotta]

Just to side-track this...

One of the reasons the "erosion of judgment" concept is so neat is that is applies so well to discussing golf course architecture too, and to the kind of architecture/courses that many around here value, i.e. the sloping/tilted fairways, firm and fast conditions, 'random' as oppossed to 'directional' bunkering, skyline and other tricky-type greens, strategic options etc, all of which seem to come from a time of (and now have re-emerged with) an interest in "judgement" as being central to the game and ethos of golf, and not just shot-making "skill"

Mind you, I have not the talent to be talking is such high falutin terms, as I gotta get my skill level up before talking like a big-shot about judgement. But I think that some type of platonic ideal about what golf and golf course architecture should be would involve at least as much judegment as skill

Peter   

[Tom Huckaby]

Peter - methinks you ought to move into the high-fallutin' more often - that was very insightful and very well-said.

The platonic ideal of golf should most definitely include judgment.  Now... should it be EQUAL to skill, as it plays out?  Hmmmmm... that's a puzzler.  It should DEFINITELY be a part of things, but I'm having a hard time getting it to 50/50.  But if it is that... I can live with it also.  This really is food for thought.

But you did just re-open the thread, I think... thus killing Kalen's chances at legend.  You bad guy you.

 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Back at the beginning of this thread a question was posed to Shivas by Michael Moore and it was:

What about players who line up the seam of the ball with the intended line of play? Are they perpetrating some sort of violation?

Shivas' reply:  

This is a violation of the spirit, but not the letter, because there is no "mark" being placed.

This should help to illustrate the intransigent position taken by him on this subject. By his reasoning you don't even have to have a mark of any type on the ball to be in violation of the spirit of the rule, the game, or both. Just using the seam will earn you demerits in Dave's world. Heck, never mind the seam,  I just rummaged through some 'jar' balls I have on the counter and I find straight lines that aren't seams, along with series of dimples that also run in straight lines, on every ball I looked at.
Therefore, by his puritanical and rigid approach, anyone using a 'line' of any sort found on the ball to help w/alignment would be guilty of, at least, a 'spiritual' infraction.

But, it's easy to see why he has to take the position that using a seam is  a 'spiritual' offense, one that parallels the use of a line or trademark, i.e, any further argument would lose its premise.

Actually, it probably isn't over, it's possible that some 'new' reason will be 'created'  by him to continue his argument. That wouldn't be shocking.

 

[Kalen Braley]

But you did just re-open the thread, I think... thus killing Kalen's chances at legend.  You bad guy you.

 

Damn you Peter!!!! 

Twas a really good post though.  As much as it may seem like an oxymoron, I really do enjoy thinking around the golf course as opposed to just putting a peg in the ground and seeing how far and straight I can hit it.

I know its cliche, but the old Alister McK saying that goes along the lines of people losing interest in thier course and not knowing why, and visas versa is very very true at least to me.  Give me a course where I can legimitally play most holes 10 different ways and I'm going to be a happy camper.  And for you wisecracks, I'm not talking about duffing the ball of the tee at varying distances, even though thats not far from the truth.    Then throw in there varying wind conditions that now all of a sudden make a large bunker "carryable" and the hole plays entirely different again.

I sure as hell don't have many skills on the course, but I can usually use judgement to keep myself out of the worst spots to be in....and salvage the bogey! 

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom H, Kalen - thanks, but was it worth having Kalen's chances at legend buried? No, even I don't think so.  And we were so close to the end...

Tom H - good question and a big one. All I can say for now is, given my skill level I'm pushing hard for that 50-50 split...but that could change

Kalen - nice connection to the Dr. Mackenzie idea; hadn't thought of that at all

Peter

[RJ_Daley]

I don't think it can be over until you guys pick an arbitrator and agree to a final and binding decision on this matter.   I think the only logical arbitrator died falling down the stairs at his club in 1908.

Shivas, who in the modern world of golf, and a leading rules authority do you trust to be fair and impartial to settle this? 

...

...

...


That's what I thought...

[Tom Huckaby]

RJD:

Dying at that.  He has at least two great rules authorities weighing in against him, of course:  Tom Paul and John VanderBorght.

But you know.... a certain brother of a certain website creater holds THE #1 rules position at the USGA....

I wonder if shivas would even settle for that man's opinion.

Nah.  What the hell am I thinking?  He'd be seen as just another USGA shill for Tiger.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

Just to side-track this...

One of the reasons the "erosion of judgment" concept is so neat is that is applies so well to discussing golf course architecture too, and to the kind of architecture/courses that many around here value, i.e. the sloping/tilted fairways, firm and fast conditions, 'random' as oppossed to 'directional' bunkering, skyline and other tricky-type greens, strategic options etc, all of which seem to come from a time of (and now have re-emerged with) an interest in "judgement" as being central to the game and ethos of golf, and not just shot-making "skill"

Mind you, I have not the talent to be talking is such high falutin terms, as I gotta get my skill level up before talking like a big-shot about judgement. But I think that some type of platonic ideal about what golf and golf course architecture should be would involve at least as much judegment as skill

Peter   

Peter, you got it.  That's where I was going next.

I can't imagine that a single GCA worth his salt is in favor of rangefinders because it pulls the rug right out from underneath one of the major tools in their toolbox:  optical illusion.

But shivas, we covered that in the other thread.  It does, and it doesn't.  Two points:

1) the devices are far from infallible.  Skycaddie gets wildly off at times; bushnells require skill to get correct, and often times you can't shoot the exact item you want and have to settle for something nearby.  Doubt is not removed, not completely.

2) there's so much distance information available anyway these days, optical illusions only exist if one doesn't trust the markings.  Sure that does happen; but that lack of trust is just plain NOT removed with the electronic devices.  Seriously, if you don't believe a sprinkler head, you WILL believe a bushnell?  I don't buy it.

So at least in my mind, strike this one off. 

The truly only point I accept against these devices is the "no electronics".  I agree with that.  But that ship has sailed also.

TH

[Kalen Braley]

In light of Peters insightful comment, I brought this over from a different thread and thought it applied perfectly here in so many ways.  (And I'm sure Shiv will use it as ammo in the Rangefinder thread).

How perfect is this..I couldn't agree more!

I just read Jeff's fine article on Vernon Macan and think the target golf, pro-range finder crowd should read his quote about front to back sloping greens:

"Today, the uninformed believe a green should be constructed with the slope from back to front, so that it will retain the ball," he said. "In brief, this suggests the shot should be a mechanical operation and the result a mathematical certainty. This is not the game of golf. Golf was not conceived as a mechanical operation but rather full of fun and adventure. Many things could happen to the ball after it pitched on the green. The ill-happenings were not regarded as ill-fortune or ill-luck, but part of the adventure, and the more skilled found methods to overcome the risks of ill-fortune."