News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Sam Morrow

Re: Old Tom Believed in Technology
« Reply #25 on: May 14, 2012, 10:12:48 PM »
Melvyn if the clubs and balls became more consistent then wouldn't the lowering of scores probably go hand in hand?

If they did, the lowering would be so small you would hardly be able to measure it. Remember a few years back one of the ball companies was advertising the first truly consistently round ball. How did that affect the game, and the scores? However, when they invent ways to circumvent the natural way a solid ball reacts to being struck by a club, we get enormous changes in the game, and measurable changes in scores.


Exactly, so why do we need to be hung up by advancements in equipment?

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Old Tom Believed in Technology
« Reply #26 on: May 15, 2012, 10:05:50 AM »
Melvyn if the clubs and balls became more consistent then wouldn't the lowering of scores probably go hand in hand?

If they did, the lowering would be so small you would hardly be able to measure it. Remember a few years back one of the ball companies was advertising the first truly consistently round ball. How did that affect the game, and the scores? However, when they invent ways to circumvent the natural way a solid ball reacts to being struck by a club, we get enormous changes in the game, and measurable changes in scores.


Exactly, so why do we need to be hung up by advancements in equipment?

Do you truly not understand the meaning of what I wrote?
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Old Tom Believed in Technology
« Reply #27 on: May 15, 2012, 12:02:57 PM »

Sam

The Clubs and balls became consistent around the turn of the 20th Century.

Melvyn

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Old Tom Believed in Technology
« Reply #28 on: May 15, 2012, 02:54:59 PM »
Dan,

I am pretty sure that it is against the rules to use a club to align yourself in the manner you describe. Also, the accidental moving of the marker with the ball or the ball with the marker is also not penalised if I recall correctly.

Jon

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Old Tom Believed in Technology
« Reply #29 on: May 15, 2012, 02:59:08 PM »
Dan,

I am pretty sure that it is against the rules to use a club to align yourself in the manner you describe. Also, the accidental moving of the marker with the ball or the ball with the marker is also not penalised if I recall correctly.

Jon

Jon -- I'd love to have someone who really knows the rules, cold (no offense), tell me if it's against the rules to align yourself like that.

I checked into the accidental moving of the marker with the ball. It's un-penalized if it moves in the IMMEDIATE marking or replacing of the ball. If you drop the ball from waist level, that is, it's still penalized. That's how I read the rules and decisions, anyway.

Dan
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Old Tom Believed in Technology
« Reply #30 on: May 15, 2012, 03:16:04 PM »
Dan,

I am pretty sure that it is against the rules to use a club to align yourself in the manner you describe. Also, the accidental moving of the marker with the ball or the ball with the marker is also not penalised if I recall correctly.

Jon

Jon -- I'd love to have someone who really knows the rules, cold (no offense), tell me if it's against the rules to align yourself like that.

I checked into the accidental moving of the marker with the ball. It's un-penalized if it moves in the IMMEDIATE marking or replacing of the ball. If you drop the ball from waist level, that is, it's still penalized. That's how I read the rules and decisions, anyway.

Dan

Dan,

no offense taken. I know that causing the ball to move during marking/replacing is without penalty and see no difference if it is in between as it is difficult to say exactly when immediately begins. However, I am sure your reading of the rules/decisions could be correct.

It is not allowed to use a club or any other artificial aid to help with alignment or stance including laying a club down on the ground in a fashion that might aid either. Also, the flag stick must not be lain on the green in align with the hole, line of the put or stance.

Jon

Ed Brzezowski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Old Tom Believed in Technology
« Reply #31 on: May 15, 2012, 03:32:22 PM »
Dan is correct, there is no penalty if moved in the act of marking or removing the mark. Anything else gets you an additional stroke.
Went all through the decisions, I think the club act is allowed as long as it is moved prior to address.

Had an event last summer where a guy was drawing a line in the dew to align ball flight and his feet. What a whack job, he says since it is not permanent there is no penalty. Good luck with that logic.

I wonder if Old Tom drew a line on his ball?? I think Melvyns head would explode.

Can anyone explain why it's ok to put a line on your ball but not your glove???
We have a pool and a pond, the pond would be good for you.

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Old Tom Believed in Technology
« Reply #32 on: May 15, 2012, 03:45:08 PM »
From usga.org:

Brandt Snedeker Fumbles Away a Stroke at the U.S. Open

Rule 20-3: Placing and Replacing a Ball

While playing the fourth round of the 2008 U.S. Open Championship at Torrey Pines, Brandt Snedeker had marked the position of his ball with a ball-marker and lifted his ball from the putting green of the ninth hole. When it was his turn to play, he bent down to replace his ball in front of his ball-marker. As he was bending down, the ball fell from his hand when it was approximately at knee height and struck the ball-marker, causing the ball-marker to move. Snedeker asked for a ruling from the Referee with the group.

Rule 20-3a states that if a ball-marker is accidentally moved in the process of replacing the ball, the ball-marker must be replaced. There is no penalty, provided the movement of the ball-marker is directly attributable to the specific act of replacing the ball. Otherwise, the player incurs a penalty of one stroke.

Decision 20-1/15 clarifies what is meant by the phrase "directly attributable." The phrase means the specific act of replacing a ball in front of a ball-marker (i.e., the player's hand and fingers are holding the ball immediately above or actually replacing the ball on the surface of the putting green). Any accidental movement of the ball-marker before this specific act, such as dropping the ball on the ball-marker regardless of the height from which it was dropped, is not considered to be "directly attributable" to the act of replacing the ball.

In Snedeker's case, as the ball was at knee height when he dropped it, the movement of the ball-marker was not directly attributable to the replacement of the ball, and he therefore incurred a one-stroke penalty. Snedeker shot an even-par 71 on Sunday to finish the championship at 4-over-par 288, five strokes behind Tiger Woods and Rocco Mediate. His T9 finish was his best-ever performance at the U.S. Open.
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Old Tom Believed in Technology
« Reply #33 on: May 15, 2012, 04:43:23 PM »
Dan,

I was not saying you were wrong however your post shows how difficult it is to define 'directly attributable' as Snedecker was bending down to replace the ball and so it is very easy to attribute his act as being 'directly attributable' to this and so no penalty. At the risk of setting certain people off I wonder if the same ruling would have been made if it were a Seve or dare I say it Tiger arguing no infringement.

Does the decision give a hint as to at what distance from the marker  'directly attributable' starts.

Jon

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Old Tom Believed in Technology
« Reply #34 on: May 15, 2012, 05:17:00 PM »
Does the decision give a hint as to at what distance from the marker  'directly attributable' starts.

Here it is:

20-1/15
Meaning of "Directly Attributable" in Rules 20-1 and 20-3a

Q.What is meant by the phrase "directly attributable to the specific act" in Rules 20-1 and 20-3a?

A.In Rule 20-1 the phrase means the specific act of placing a ball-marker behind the ball, placing a club to the side of the ball, or lifting the ball such that the player's hand, the placement of the ball-marker or the club, or the lifting of the ball causes the ball or the ball-marker to move.

In Rule 20-3a the phrase means the specific act of placing or replacing a ball in front of a ball-marker, placing a club to the side of a ball-marker or lifting the ball-marker such that the player's hand, the placement of the ball or club, or the lifting of the ball-marker causes the ball or the ball-marker to move.

Under either Rule, any accidental movement of the ball or the ball-marker which occurs before or after this specific act, such as dropping the ball or ball-marker, regardless of the height from which it was dropped, is not considered to be "directly attributable" and would result in the player incurring a penalty stroke.
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

David_Elvins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Old Tom Believed in Technology
« Reply #35 on: May 16, 2012, 06:59:38 AM »
at that time only 30 odd clubs existed some sharing the same course

So I have played 4-5 times as many courses in the last two years as existed on planet when Old Tom was approaching his prime.  And you wonder why I need some help with a yardage.  You could memorise the yardage to features on every hole in the world in the 1850s.
Ask not what GolfClubAtlas can do for you; ask what you can do for GolfClubAtlas.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Old Tom Believed in Technology
« Reply #36 on: May 16, 2012, 07:12:03 AM »


David

The sad part of all this is my friend, is that you do not need help with yardage. You just do not need yardage. Try playing the game without thinking yardage, just let the eyes look and if close enough focus on the target, but do not clutter your mind with yardage, it’s a real distraction, it just dulls the mind like drugs.

Play a few rounds by yourself, not think or looking for yardage, yes your game may suffer for 3-4 rounds as you brain rejects the need for yardage data and recalibrates info from the eyes. A rehab if you like or detox, but clear it from your mind and your game will get back to your normal within a few more rounds. I cannot guarantee that you will achieve a better score, but you might being more relaxed, but one thing I can say, the game will come back to you and you will remember why you took up golf in the first place.

It is a mind over matter, to delete information you have come to rely upon is just like going to rehab to detoxing your system, in this case your brain.

Melvyn

Stephen Davis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Old Tom Believed in Technology
« Reply #37 on: May 16, 2012, 12:18:06 PM »


David

The sad part of all this is my friend, is that you do not need help with yardage. You just do not need yardage. Try playing the game without thinking yardage, just let the eyes look and if close enough focus on the target, but do not clutter your mind with yardage, it’s a real distraction, it just dulls the mind like drugs.

Play a few rounds by yourself, not think or looking for yardage, yes your game may suffer for 3-4 rounds as you brain rejects the need for yardage data and recalibrates info from the eyes. A rehab if you like or detox, but clear it from your mind and your game will get back to your normal within a few more rounds. I cannot guarantee that you will achieve a better score, but you might being more relaxed, but one thing I can say, the game will come back to you and you will remember why you took up golf in the first place.

It is a mind over matter, to delete information you have come to rely upon is just like going to rehab to detoxing your system, in this case your brain.

Melvyn


Melvyn,

This is a bit of a ridiculous statement. But to compare the use of yardage to drugs is a bit far fetched. I don't see how not knowing how far I am supposed to hit the ball is supposed to bring one into this zenlike state you are describing. In fact, not knowing pertinent information is going to do the opposite, it will cause stress through uncertainty. There have been many studies that bear this out. I don't know if my eyes are worse than yours (they must be), but I cannot tell the difference between 190 yards and 210. If I pull my 5 iron thinking that I need to hit it 190 and end up in the front bunker, than what. I am now in the front bunker rather than on the green.

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Old Tom Believed in Technology
« Reply #38 on: May 16, 2012, 01:06:48 PM »
I don't know if my eyes are worse than yours (they must be), but I cannot tell the difference between 190 yards and 210. If I pull my 5 iron thinking that I need to hit it 190 and end up in the front bunker, than what. I am now in the front bunker rather than on the green.

The proper quantities of the right drugs, and you won't care!

(BTW: I'm with you.)
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Ed Brzezowski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Old Tom Believed in Technology
« Reply #39 on: May 16, 2012, 01:25:07 PM »
Love the 5 iron story.

Three years ago I am standing on the 66 yard marker and place three balls into the pond fronting the hole. My partner asked what was wrong, I told him I must have some disease because I couldn't hit a sand wegde 66 yards. As you may suspect i was on the 99 yard marker. As God as my witness it looked 66 to me, still does with new glasses. And I have played this course over 500 times.

So, therefore after this scientific test, I must reject Melvyns premise. Besides those Pro V 1's are expensive. Drum me out of the treehouse but I need some yardage ideas to play.

We have a pool and a pond, the pond would be good for you.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Old Tom Believed in Technology
« Reply #40 on: May 16, 2012, 01:32:18 PM »

Stephen

Not ridiculous at all.  It all boils down as to how one was taught. I was lucky that the game in St Andrews had not been infected when I started in my father’s (and his before him) footsteps. Distance in the form of a measured unit was not ever considered nor was any distance in yards feet and inches even brought into the conversation – but then why should it have been we were playing the Royal & Ancient Game of Golf. The gap was judged and from that one selected ones club, no need to pace, look for markers or shout out a distance. The only numbers I ever remember on a golf course was when it was shouted and usually sounded like “FOUR”, so we instinctively ducked.

That was the way we played and the way my forefathers at St Andrews played Golf, distance from the ball on a fairway to the pin was never mentioned. Yet we all knew how far we were hitting the ball thanks to that little flag we were all aiming at. Surprising those far more skilled and way better golfers than yours truly, like my father seems to manage to get to where he wanted placing his ball close to his target with just of few exceptions when he made a bad shot.

You distance guys are so het up with the need to know the yardage, just like someone wanting or requiring their daily fix,  that your game has become obsessed by distance. Yet history seems to back up my view that this distance craven is new, no yardage books can be found pre WW2, nor writing or any other forms of distance that resembles the modern needs/requirement of many new golfers.

I presume you grew up with distance yardage books, was drip fed to you over the years that it now affects your confidence if you do not know the yardage, just like a drug abuse? Has it left you unable to judge any form of distance by just looking. Actually if you are in a car and I ask you to stop in 175 yards, can you do that, can you stop close to the 175 yard point or is that only possible on a golf course?

Stephen you have been taught, it would seem with distance being a paramount importance in your game. However, I was not, my teaching was about looking, feeling using my senses, listening to the wind and seeing the movement of grass, trees and the how the birds fly through the air. In the old days it was regarded as letting the land, the course speaking to you and you work with the conditions. Romantic, no, not at all simply playing golf by concentrating on what was and I still believe is important, that of rising to the challenge.

With all that said, you still have that final look to the target, to check it and tell me what do all the studies say about the brain (human computer) operating on the final information feeding it – not by an outside aid but by the information gathered by the eyes, fed to the brain before activating the swing. Are you really telling me the brain has ignored that final flood of information for something talked about some five minutes earlier. With all respect, I do not think the studies have resolved those issues.

I feel the way I was taught brings out the best in me, my game and golf, I just wish that you guys could see the target without cluttering up your game with pointless yardage info.

Distance aids should not be allowed, they pollute the game and worst still the minds of golfers and some blood good golfer at that.

Melvyn   

Ed Its not just glasses you need but another test, as you seem to have screwed up the last one.

Stephen Davis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Old Tom Believed in Technology
« Reply #41 on: May 16, 2012, 02:47:48 PM »
Melvyn,

I want to clarify that what I was stating as ridiculous was not the way in which you play the game (as you seem to do with the way many others choose to play it), but the assertion that by using yardages we are like unto drug addicts. You describe, very beautifully, the game as it was taught to you by your father (I hope someday to see the beauty of the course of your ancestry). Just because the game was taught to me by my father (a fantastic golfer in his own right) in a different fashion, does that make it wrong? I in no way begrudge you for the way in which you choose to play this great game, but I am puzzled by your contempt for the way in which my father taught me and the way others on this site choose to play it. Just because it is different in no way makes it wrong.

Dan King

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Old Tom Believed in Technology
« Reply #42 on: May 16, 2012, 03:05:44 PM »
Melvyn Hunter Morrow writes:
Try playing the game without thinking yardage, just let the eyes look and if close enough focus on the target, but do not clutter your mind with yardage, it’s a real distraction, it just dulls the mind like drugs.

I have no idea what sort of drugs you are taking -- if I had to guess based on the dulling of the mind comment it would be alcohol -- but many of the recreational drugs I have taken over the years expand the mind.

Cheers,
Dan King
Quote
“I loved when Bush came out and said, 'We are losing the war against drugs.'

You know what that implies? There's a war being fought, and the people on drugs are winning it.”
― Bill Hicks

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Old Tom Believed in Technology
« Reply #43 on: May 16, 2012, 05:37:25 PM »

Stephen

Yes I gathered what you were referring to.  No there is nothing wrong, that is the way many prefer to play. My point is that you miss so much, but that’s your choice.

The issue I do have is not against you but our governing body. Distance aids should never been allowed in any form because it has changed the game of golf and eaten into what is originally right or wrong. The game of golf or the Royal and Ancient Game of Golf at the time the R&A became the supreme voice of the game in the late 1890’s was a game of walking and thinking. There were no such things as carts or distance aids of any sort, but within 50 years of being the sole authority they have allowed carts, non-walking courses, and allowed all sort of outside aids into a game that has destroyed hundreds of years of traditions, none of which  included riding or receiving outside aids. Even caddies only ever carried clubs and retrieved balls. The game has been corrupted from within the governing body whom are meant to be there to protect the very heart and spirit of the game, not to mentions the traditions.

Now if people want to play the game with aids be it carts, distance aids, uncontrolled technology, or behave as they wish on a course, that’s also fine with me. I just ask that the Governing Body and those who want to play this way call their variation of the game by a different name, perhaps  applicable to their way of playing. i.e. cart ball if using carts, techno golf for whatever, just so long as the Game of Golf is defined as it has always been a walking thinking game devoid of carts and distance aids.

The problem is that will not happen, so who are the losers, the people who honour the game and its time honoured traditions. Those who are happy with their bastardised version of the game are allowed to call their variations golf too, just seems unfair to me as we are not playing the same game. 

This is a mess, it should never have happened and the governing Body has totally failed to protect the Royal and Ancient Game of Golf.

So play your game in which ever variation you wish, it’s all OK in the eyes of the R&A.

Melvyn

Dan

Never taken drugs but have seen those that do and their craven for their fix.