[Sean_A]

Science denial isn't good for any political party or any citizens of this world.

Unfortunately, in the US science gets hijacked by regulation. Regulation is fairly well defined along party lines.

Ciao

[Mike Wagner]

Science denial isn't good for any political party or any citizens of this world.

I agree. However, I will encourage people to question it all day long.

[Stewart Abramson]

I still don’t get why so many of you choose to get angry about what other golfers enjoy. It’s not a choice I would recommend.

^One of your best posts.


The part I omitted was pretty good too

[Cliff Hamm]

Politicizing comments

[Bill Crane]

Lots of the items listed in these posts can be categorized as ...
Diminished respect for the traditions of the game.
I know that some old clubs are/were over the top with how thorough and inflexibly they hold their traditions and practices, but you usually know where you stand.
Traditions have also been abused in the past as a way to discriminate which is also terrible and unfortunate.
Many of the traditions were rooted in a logical practice with good underlying reason.
In growing the game - many traditions are getting tossed over the side.  My living is not dependent on golf growing, but it seems to me that golf does not have to be for everyone.

[Matt Schoolfield]

Science denial isn't good for any political party or any citizens of this world.

Unfortunately, in the US science gets hijacked by regulation. Regulation is fairly well defined along party lines.

Ciao

I just think the world is complicated. I have strong concerns about over-regulation (I'm not the hippy that many here may think I am), but I'm fairly deferential to pretty clear cut cases where the potential benefits outweigh the costs. In the previous thread referenced, I noted New Jersey's decision to restrict neonicotinoid pesticides for non-agricultural use (and only then in emergency uses), over concerns that they are significantly contributing to our current collapse of bee/pollinator populations.

There are critics of the lab studies (as you can see in the citations), and I have no doubt that they are perfectly reasonable folks. However, it is not feasible to run an experiment on a large scale, because you can't put thousands of acres of farmland in a lab, and even then, you'd need to run that experiment a dozen or so times to get real, conclusive statistically rigorous theory. For all practical purposes, it's impossible to do without large scale regulations.

Still, the declining population of pollinator species is a crisis, especially in the United States and Europe. So is the answer to do nothing in the face of "well these pesticides probably contribute to this crisis, but we're not sure, and we're not sure how much exactly" to do nothing? It's a tough call. However, when they are only being used to simply prettify a purely recreational activity, I think it's pretty reasonable. I also think it's reasonable to still allow them in serious agricultural situations where they are known to help, because cause we're not sure how much of an impact they actually have.

Science is hard. Politics is hard. I think being flexible and reasonable in the face of frustrating situation like this is entirely appropriate. It's entirely plausible that neonicotinoid pesticides, in the amounts we're using on golf courses aren't actually contributing the crisis at all, and it would be perfectly fine to keep using them... but we're just talking about making golf courses a tiny bit less pretty. On the other hand, if they are impacting pollinator populations, I hope we'd all agree that we should stop using them immediately. This is a classic asymmetric outcome, where we have little to lose, but huge potential to gain. Making these types of bets should benefit us in the long run. Nassim Taleb refers to these asymmetric payout games (in the game-theory sense) as Seneca's Barbell in his book Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder, which I would obviously recommend for folks interested in philosophy and finance.

[Lyne Morrison]

Narrow fairways edged with heavy rough.

[Sean_A]

Science denial isn't good for any political party or any citizens of this world.

Unfortunately, in the US science gets hijacked by regulation. Regulation is fairly well defined along party lines.

Ciao

I just think the world is complicated. I have strong concerns about over-regulation (I'm not the hippy that many here may think I am), but I'm fairly deferential to pretty clear cut cases where the potential benefits outweigh the costs. In the previous thread referenced, I noted New Jersey's decision to restrict neonicotinoid pesticides for non-agricultural use (and only then in emergency uses), over concerns that they are significantly contributing to our current collapse of bee/pollinator populations.

There are critics of the lab studies (as you can see in the citations), and I have no doubt that they are perfectly reasonable folks. However, it is not feasible to run an experiment on a large scale, because you can't put thousands of acres of farmland in a lab, and even then, you'd need to run that experiment a dozen or so times to get real, conclusive statistically rigorous theory. For all practical purposes, it's impossible to do without large scale regulations.

Still, the declining population of pollinator species is a crisis, especially in the United States and Europe. So is the answer to do nothing in the face of "well these pesticides probably contribute to this crisis, but we're not sure, and we're not sure how much exactly" to do nothing? It's a tough call. However, when they are only being used to simply prettify a purely recreational activity, I think it's pretty reasonable. I also think it's reasonable to still allow them in serious agricultural situations where they are known to help, because cause we're not sure how much of an impact they actually have.

Science is hard. Politics is hard. I think being flexible and reasonable in the face of frustrating situation like this is entirely appropriate. It's entirely plausible that neonicotinoid pesticides, in the amounts we're using on golf courses aren't actually contributing the crisis at all, and it would be perfectly fine to keep using them... but we're just talking about making golf courses a tiny bit less pretty. On the other hand, if they are impacting pollinator populations, I hope we'd all agree that we should stop using them immediately. This is a classic asymmetric outcome, where we have little to lose, but huge potential to gain. Making these types of bets should benefit us in the long run. Nassim Taleb refers to these asymmetric payout games (in the game-theory sense) as Seneca's Barbell in his book Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder, which I would obviously recommend for folks interested in philosophy and finance.

I am always interested in case by case decision making based on increasingly difficult to find impartial science. Unfortunately, I cannot be an expert on all matters of science so I must rely on others’ good judgement, common sense and politically unbiased opinions. Due to idiotic party politics and an entrenched citizenry I find myself  increasingly unwilling to participate in the daily ding dong, Life is too short for that crap. Politics as an art of compassion and compromise is dead. The last 40 years have taught me that much.

Ciao

[James Reader]

Science denial isn't good for any political party or any citizens of this world.

Unfortunately, in the US science gets hijacked by regulation. Regulation is fairly well defined along party lines.

Ciao

I just think the world is complicated. I have strong concerns about over-regulation (I'm not the hippy that many here may think I am), but I'm fairly deferential to pretty clear cut cases where the potential benefits outweigh the costs. In the previous thread referenced, I noted New Jersey's decision to restrict neonicotinoid pesticides for non-agricultural use (and only then in emergency uses), over concerns that they are significantly contributing to our current collapse of bee/pollinator populations.

There are critics of the lab studies (as you can see in the citations), and I have no doubt that they are perfectly reasonable folks. However, it is not feasible to run an experiment on a large scale, because you can't put thousands of acres of farmland in a lab, and even then, you'd need to run that experiment a dozen or so times to get real, conclusive statistically rigorous theory. For all practical purposes, it's impossible to do without large scale regulations.

Still, the declining population of pollinator species is a crisis, especially in the United States and Europe. So is the answer to do nothing in the face of "well these pesticides probably contribute to this crisis, but we're not sure, and we're not sure how much exactly" to do nothing? It's a tough call. However, when they are only being used to simply prettify a purely recreational activity, I think it's pretty reasonable. I also think it's reasonable to still allow them in serious agricultural situations where they are known to help, because cause we're not sure how much of an impact they actually have.

Science is hard. Politics is hard. I think being flexible and reasonable in the face of frustrating situation like this is entirely appropriate. It's entirely plausible that neonicotinoid pesticides, in the amounts we're using on golf courses aren't actually contributing the crisis at all, and it would be perfectly fine to keep using them... but we're just talking about making golf courses a tiny bit less pretty. On the other hand, if they are impacting pollinator populations, I hope we'd all agree that we should stop using them immediately. This is a classic asymmetric outcome, where we have little to lose, but huge potential to gain. Making these types of bets should benefit us in the long run. Nassim Taleb refers to these asymmetric payout games (in the game-theory sense) as Seneca's Barbell in his book Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder, which I would obviously recommend for folks interested in philosophy and finance.

It’s worth noting that neonicitinoids have been almost completely banned in Europe and the UK, including for agricultural uses.

[Tim Leahy]

WALKING ONLY
 

[Garland Bayley]

For those that compete at their local club.....sandbaggers.

Whining vanity handicaps that think true handicaps are artificially low, i.e. sandbagged, because they have no idea what an accurate handicap is like.

By the way, such vanity handicaps are known as annuities.

[Garland Bayley]

Narrow fairways edged with heavy rough.

Saunton East 

[Jeff Schley]

For those that compete at their local club.....sandbaggers.

Whining vanity handicaps that think true handicaps and artificially low, i.e. sandbagged, because they have no idea what an accurate handicap is like.

By the way, such vanity handicaps are known as annuities.

Yeah it's funny no matter what golf club you go to these are the same.  The guys who have a single digit handicap who can never hit it are always complaining about the higher capper winning.  I do think the WHS has evened some of that out with more recent scores and only 8 counting. However, if people aren't honest in their play on both ends of the spectrum for casual rounds like either giving themselves every putt, or guys purposefully missing putts it can be gamed. Integrity is and has been the hallmark of the game, the overwhelming majority maintain it, the small minority ruin it for some.

[Thomas Dai]

Narrow fairways edged with heavy rough.

Yabba, dabba, doo!
Excess trees and scrub too.
As Dr MacK’ said “There should be a complete absence of the annoyance and irritation caused by the necessity of searching for lost balls.”
As for other things this thread aimed to highlight, well many have been mentioned above.
Golf’s essentially a simple ball, stick, hole game. It’s all the paraphernalia and malarkey that surrounds the game, which let’s not forget is, unless you’re ’in the business’, a leisure pastime and should hopefully be a fun one, that makes it complex and costly and can even remove the fun element.
Atb

[Garland Bayley]

It was better in the good old days when everyone played match play.

This aberration of medal play that came into existence as an aid for holding tournaments is something golf could do without.

[Craig Sweet]

Yearly equipment changes and all the hype and marketing that goes with it.

[Gary Kurth]

1. Evergreen trees with limbs all the way to the ground that are within the playing area of the hole.  Back drop behind tees or way behind greens, fine but along fairways, no thanks.


2. Sunflower seeds on greens.

[Mark Pearce]

increasingly difficult to find impartial science.

This is an extraordinary statement.  What's your basis for it?  In my experience, the (vast) majority of scientists are apolitical animals, interested in the discovery of truth.  The fact that some (almost exclusively non-scientific) politicians seek to politicise science does not mean that science itself is any less impartial.

[David_Tepper]

Bring back the stymie!

[Garland Bayley]

Bring back the stymie!

Amen to that!

A. V. Macan

[Padraig Dooley]

A lack of expertise.
There's a whole lot of expertise around, yet somehow clubs can still figure out how not to use it.

[Ryan Van Culin]

Cart paths (and most carts)


most trees


excessively long rough that make finding balls difficult


overwatering for aesthetics


drivers greater than 200 cc


excessive greens speed (>~10')




On the subject of ball washers, I love the combo of ball washer/club cleaner mounted on the side of the cart as a replacement, though I understand the irony since I eliminated carts firstly on my list, haha.

[Tim Martin]

A lack of expertise.
There's a whole lot of expertise around, yet somehow clubs can still figure out how not to use it.

Too often the low digit player has an outsized say without the substantive base of knowledge required to make design decisions. Without considering the effect on a diverse range of abilities the input only serves one subset of players.

[Mike_Trenham]

Repetitive pinching of landing zones.


OB on one length of the hole and a lateral hazard on the other.

[Mike Tanner]

Golf can do without cart riders who don't use them to maintain pace of play.

How many times have you seen two people in a cart drive to the ball farthest from the green (or shortest from the tee, if you prefer) and stop. Player 1 gets out to hit their second shot while Player 2 lollygags on the cart seat. The cart doesn't move until Player 1 shoots the distance with a range finder, contemplates which club to employ, makes a few practice swings, and then (if there hasn't been a reconsideration of club selection) finally hits the ball.

While all of this is happening, you're hoping to see a good shot. Sometimes it is, sometimes, it's not. Eventually, the cart moves to Player 2's ball and the whole dreadful performance takes place again. Then it happens over and over and over again.

You're stuck behind them because the cart riders ahead of them are following the same script. There's no marshal, or self-awareness for that matter. I just wish those golfers would miss 'em quick.

 


 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()