Jump to content

stuka44

Member
  • Posts

    284
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Contact Methods

  • Twitter
    None
  • Instagram
    None

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Madison, Ohio

Player Profile

  • Age
    50-59
  • Swing Speed
    91-100 mph
  • Handicap
    14
  • Frequency of Play/Practice
    Weekly
  • Player Type
    Casual
  • Biggest Strength
    Driver/Off the Tee
  • Biggest Weakness
    Approach
  • Fitted for Clubs
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

1,685 profile views

stuka44's Achievements

 

  (1/14)

403

Reputation

  1. I will watch because it is golf. Just like I watch the DP World Tour, Ladies European Tour, and LPGA. And I know everybody hates my oftentimes outlandish examples, but here comes another one. The United States of America made it to the moon, mainly because we whisked Nazi Rocket Scientist Verner von Braun out of Germany after WW2. He was the guy who developed the V2 rocket, whose 2,200 lb. explosive warheads rained down on the Allies during WW2. So to stay ahead of the Russians after the war, we quickly got over the fact that von Braun was member of the Nazi party, and the SS. And we all love the U.S. main battle tank the M1 Abrams, watching it destroy Iraqi tanks, during desert storm etc. I know I did. Anyone want to guess who makes the smoothbore, 120 mm main cannon on the Abrams. You guessed it Rheinmettal of West Germany. The same company who during WW2 made Flak 88's , to shoot at our bombers, various caliber of Anti-tank guns, and the main gun for the German Panther Tank, which destroyed many allied tanks and vehicles(and the soldiers inside of them). I don't really have a point, other than to say, I'm pretty sure most Americans don't know that our main battle tank is presently armed with a weapon which is produced by a company, that made thousands of weapons for the German Army in WW2, which were used to kill thousands of Allied soldiers during that conflict. Every country has done horrible things, and does questionable things.
  2. I am trying to arrange playing in Kenya when we go there later this year. I will have an initial day to spare before the actual family trip begins. It says they have public rates so I'm hoping this means I can get a round in, at either Karen Country Club, or Muthaiga Country Club both in Nairobi. Both have hosted the DP Tour Magical Kenya Open. Fingers Crossed!
  3. Don't even have to think about it. Since becoming mediocre at the game 7 lost balls, into water in one round. River Hills CC in South Carolina. This course seemed to have water, precisely where my balls were destined to come down on EVERY hole (and for clarification this was not the courses fault). Most of my balls came down in locations, which could best be described as resulting from "less than stellar club swings". Maybe it wasn't every one, but I think it had water in play on like 12-15 holes or something. On any given "normal" round its about 1 per round. And while not exactly, on topic, (of looking while you play). I lived on the E. Branch of the Chagrin River here in northeast Ohio. Ok admittedly I was probably technically trespassing, but I was like 10-14 years of age. My brother and I would go fishing in the river, and the Kirtland Country Club, has 4 holes on the back nine that the tee shot is across the river. Our record was 74 in one day. We never really kept track, but we likely found in excess of 600 balls in the water, during any given summer. Oh and maybe "its and Ohio thing", my wife also asks me how many balls I lose, like filing for bankruptcy hangs in the balance. She really doesn't care I know but it is kind of odd.
  4. Ok. This has never been about, what/how the rules, say things are. Is the rule fair, equitable, and the best it can be. We have just fallen to earth from another planet, somehow we intrinsically know how to hit golf balls, with these funny sticks we found. We know no rules, NOTHING, we find a badly burned rule book. We can make out ONLY 2 things, Play the ball as it lies, and an explanation of getting a drop, if a man made, object interferes with out stance and swing. We are both right handed. We know what "manmade" is. We've liberally taken relief from, toilets, cart paths etc. On the last hole, both our drives come to rest exactly 3 ' from the solid brick wall. Mine comes to rest inside a corner of the main wall. The wall prevents me from making a backswing, and my follow through will also contact the wall. Your ball is 3 feet, from an angled, support. You can't follow through. You get it in your head, for whatever reason, that you should get relief, and I should not. My question has always been, for fairness, WITHOUT quoting a rule, or definition of golf, what would your reasons be for demanding relief, and denying it to me.
  5. I'm really not, and I speak(type ) in extremes to try and illustrate my point, that these rules of golf " are not really a sacred text" . And I might have missed it in these 4 pages, but I still didn't see a reason listed here, other than, some likely unknown, long dead person decided they needed to be handled differently. I tried to find listed in the rules of golf, or on google, any reference to the rationale, or reasoning behind these situations being treated differently, and I couldn't find any listed. I'm serious, if anyone can point me to a document, which explains why they are treated differently, other than "The Committee" said OB markers are different, and why the distinction that one marks the boundary of the course and why this is an important distinction, and why other than we say they are different, one is granted relief for obstructing the play of a ball legally in bounds and one isn't I would love to read it. And I really do appreciate your defense of the rules of the game. I don't understand it, but I do appreciate it.. And I'm not really offended over anything on this site. And contrary to what you may think, even though I probably won't abide by it, I like to understand things. I ask WHY, not to whine, but to educate myself, even about things as inconsequential to me as the rules of golf. And as with most things in life, I don't like to if I can help it, answer people's questions of me with because (and I'm not saying you did this).
  6. I actually think it attracts the eye visually. Ok attracts as in "its a bad train wreck that you can't look away from. But in all seriousness I used a $25 Dunlop Black Max of some kind, because it felt so good, up untill my bag fell over and the shaft broke. Likely because it was so cheap, it was very rusty. But man that thing felt great and I putted well with it. Its not like its old "technology" is going to prevent you from being able to strike a putt 40 feet. So if it feels good to you. KEEP ON USING IT UNTIL IT DISINTEGRATES!!
  7. Agree 100%. Have something windproof, on the outside, and walk. Walking will pretty quickly allow to shed a couple layers that may be needed to stay warm just standing around waiting to tee off, or combating the wind chill of the moving cart.
  8. THIS IS IT FOR ME, ON THIS: Well provided example. It again misses the main point. I have never said that relief should always come in an area free of Natural obstructions, to the next shot. Oh and why does it depend on how the boundary fence is constructed. Why can one get relief from the supports of a boundary fence. If the fence is such an integral part of playing the course, then why does it matter, what manner of fence was constructed. Every part of it no matter how intrusive should render no relief. And I take offense the elitist attitude, that because I am willing to ask for an explanation of something, beyond "because someone, said so" as whining, and being told "get over it"! And who are you to summarily dismiss my reasons or anyone elses for discussing this matter or anything else, with a comment like "if it really bothers you". That comment conveys a level of arrogance, that implies that I couldn't possibly have any reason, and that there could never be a reason, that would warrant consideration, for this rule to be changed, or ammended. Maybe I suffered irreperable damage to my elbow trying to strike a ball which was next to a boundary wall to help my college team win a tournament. Maybe I would like to see the rule changed to keep this from happening to anyone else. (OK IT didn't, but what if it had.) And why is it taken as a "personal attack", by most people who want to defend the rules of golf. Like we are accusing you of being personally responsible, for the inequities we believe exist. Why does the mere suggestion that a rule of the game may be inconsistent, inqeuitable, unfair, or whatever other description one would use, the defense of it almost immediately, digresses to an accusation of the questioner, being unworthy to play the game, and a suggestion that the person should quit, because "The Sacred Game: Golf" is being damaged at its core, by the mere suggestion that the rules are not perfect. I am glad, even though someone had come up with a rule about it, that Rosa Parks didn't listen when someone likely told her to "stop whining, and get over it" its just the way it is, if you don't like it move out of Alabama. The ENTIRE PLANET is a better place becasue she asked, "WHY", and said it doesn't have to be this way. Golf and its rules, comparatively, don't register on any scale of importance, for human existence. It's a game, nothing more, nothing less. Playing the game by the letter of the rules, doesn't make you a better or superior person. It just means you follow the rules, nothing more... nothing less. Agreeing with rules for anything, doesn't necessarily make them good, or just rules, it only means that you agree with them. So all I would ask is reign in comments which imply, that someone is unworthy to have an opinion about the game of golf, or its rules. THE END!
  9. Ok... Using my one foot from the brick wall(ob) example, hell lets make it 6 inches. OTHER THAN THE RULING BODIES DECIDED, AND ITS DIFFERENT BECAUSE THE RULING BODIES DECIDED, are the fairness, equity, and just reasonings for implementing this rule as it is? Also other than play the ball as it lies, because we already know that creating exceptions to this rule is no problem, because there are a lot of them already to ensure that one player is not benefitted or penalized, by being next to a port o pottie, in play.
  10. I get it not technically, but no relief implementation results in what is "realistically" a one stroke penalty. a ball one foot from a brick wall(ob marker) off the left side of the fairway, as you look from the tee, unostructed by anything else means a left handed golfer can take his stance, and hit his 4 iron to the green 240 yards away. The right handed player,who can not take a stance, is forced to in essence "take" a penalty stroke by "half-assedly" hitting it with the back of a club, or taking an unplayable.
  11. Wow, here we go again. They are only "different" things, because someone arbitrarily determined that they "were, or should" be looked at differently. You defenders of the rules, and I really do appreciate your zeal, continually make the same circular argument. " A rule exists, stating that these two things should be looked at differently, and therefore they MUST BE looked at differently. And any suggestion that fairness, or equity in the play of the game may be, being impeded by a rule or two, and suggesting that the game may be fairer, and more consistent by changing a rule "Renders us unworthy to play the game, or even suggest that the game can be improved!" I go back to what LICC said. MAN MADE OBJECTS: ON OR OFF COURSE, ERECTED BY THIS COURSE OR OUTSIDE AGENCY: Any player whose otherwise legally struck, and played ball has come to rest in bounds, on this course whose ball has come to rest in such close proximity to ANY MAN MADE OBJECT REGARDLESS OF WHO PLACED IT, shall be granted free relief from said object if his balls proximity to it renders his natural stance unattainable, or the balls proximity to said man made object, renders injury possible, by contacting this man made object or any part of it, or other man made object during the subsequent swing. I'm not sure how a rule like this couldn't be implemented with a few clarifying remarks, on procecure for taking relief, which would then ensure that in the end someone isn't penalized because they are left or right handed, and because their ball came to rest 1 foot next to a brick wall. The fact that one is a snack bar between two holes, and one is a brick wall marking a boundary edge of the course( regardless of who erected it) should make no difference, IF THE PLAYERS BALL HAS COME TO REST IN BOUNDS. And any rule which in any way justifies, supports, or results in a players handedness determining if he is penalized, is a bad rule.
  12. I agree that correctness where the rules of golf are concerned is truly in the eye of the beholder. I would just say that anytime the argument comes down to "just hit it farther from the boundary" is a red flag to me. That is using "20/20 Hindsight" to justify a rule. A player should play "knowing" whats going to happen before it does. Huh..What!. Again nobody is saying that "ALL" random outcomes should be "forgiven, and given relief". But again to try and justify a rule that an "artificial object erected, by the course, because its a boundary(ob) fence, and not any other man made on course object, so that weather or not someone is penalized, comes down, to the players "handedness" , because at some point in history, someone decided there is an arbitrary difference in these two objects,(both erected by the course in this situation), is just a dumb rule. Because take note that the arbitrary lines drawn, and referred to in the rules, and used in justifying the rules, are by definition. 1a: existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will...an arbitrary choice. When a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary.— Nehemiah Jordan b: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something...an arbitrary standard Just seems to me that Golf should be looking for every opportunity to reduce the "arbitrariness" of the lines it draws.
  13. Ok I get that this post is waning, but I just needed to get my two cents in, since I haven't been on in a while. And I'm not trying re-start the re-teeing argument penalty from a while ago. But I wholly agree with LICC on this one. A player whose ball has come to rest, in bounds should not be prevented from playing the ball, because of a marker placed on the course, or on the border of the course whose sole purpose is to provide visual reference for determining if the ball is resting in play or not. And I dispute the other sport argument. In baseball a foul ball that barely grazes the outside edge of the foul pole, and if the ball was made of velcro and would stick entirely to the pole suspended entirely out of bounds, but stuck to the foul pole, on that invisible one molecule wide line between fair ground and foul ground nonetheless, it benefits the batter and it is a Home Run. In Soccer the rules officials realized that attempting to have a "corner kick" from the actual corner, where there is a post which can't be moved was ridiculous. So they put the ARC in at the corner, in order to not have the corner post actually impede the next action of the corner kick. And the person performing the kick can implement it from the baseline or the sideline. They created A required amount of "relief" from the barrier they erected which only serves to help the referee determine if a ball goes out of play over the baseline or the sideline if it is very near the corner, but realized that this post should not prevent the next required action, an unimpeded corner kick. And they realized that it shouldn't matter what foot a player kicks with, which is why it can be done from baseline or sideline. The same should apply in golf. An artificially erected visual refernce stake(s)/ or fence, whose sole purpose is to determine if the ball is resting in play or out of play, should not penalize a player whose ball has clearly come to rest in play, just because he/she is left or right handed, and can't take a stance because of that.
  14. They really are both something right now. I was rooting for Varner/Watson.... I just really like watching, the match play, and this format with alternate shot. I wish all tours had a little bit more of the varied formats, instead of 95% stroke play.
  15. Late to this one, but I will corroborate Tom the Golf Nut. I also used Winn Dri-Tac. They were tacky for about half a year (20 rounds), and then smoothed out terribly. I also switched to Golf Pride CP2, Not sure if I have the Pro or not, but I use Mid size. Wipe them off with water every 3-4 rounds depending on how much your hands sweat, and they are good as new.
×
×
  • Create New...