Jump to content

DaveP043

Member
  • Content Count

    937
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

DaveP043 last won the day on June 18 2016

DaveP043 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,367 Excellent

About DaveP043

  • Rank
     
  • Birthday 01/03/1956

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Northern Virginia
  • Interests
    You mean I need interests outside of golf?
  • Handicap:
    4.4

Recent Profile Visitors

2,299 profile views
  1. Completely understandable. But since you're already in the system, the right thing to do is to follow the rules of that system. To me, that's the ethical thing to do, the numbers will sort themselves out.
  2. I almost don't care what anyone else, says, because the rules say you post your scores. You can't choose not to post high ones because you're injured, just as you can't choose not to post low ones because you were lucky. Chances are that you'll improve slowly, so your handicap will keep pace with your physical recovery. You certainly can be eligible to have your handicap modified upward based on your injury, and from the way you've phrased your postings here, you'll ASK to have your handicap modified downward if your recovery outpaces the handicap's system to adapt to your return to good play. Good luck!
  3. Thanks, but I wasn't sure I could find it. The more I look, the more that it seems like most issues are covered, it just taking some time learning where to look for them.
  4. I tried to look that up, one was disallowed in January 2017, but apparently the policy of the USGA is not to discuss the reasons for defining individual clubs as nonconforming. But it was my memory of the Bryson stuff that prompted me to look at the Equipment Rules, that putter and method of putting looked pretty close to what he was trying to do back then. I do know that some older clubs are now not allowed, based on the 2010 changes to the groove regulations, but were conforming when they were new. That isn't effective for everyone until 2024, I think, but at the top levels those clubs aren't allowed to be used. So yes, a club that was conforming in 2006 could become non-conforming if the rules have changed. I just don't know if the putter rules have changed, and I can't imagine that the USGA or R&A would rescind an initial approval unless the rules DID change.
  5. There's a bit in the rules that could apply to this putter: Based on the website, that's exactly how this club is intended to be used, with the shaft vertical. There's a rather long discussion about the judgement involved in making a determination about the legality of a club. Here's a bit of that: I guess I wonder if the rule has been revised since the putter received its initial approval in 2006.
  6. I don't use a line on the ball. I did the math once, if your 1.68" long line is off by 1/16" from dead on line, you're 6" off at 10 feet. But looking at the putter, I wonder if its truly legal. I know the website makes the claim, but the equipment rules require the shaft to be at least 10* off vertical. The specifically stated intention of the rule is to eliminate putters that are made to be used with the shaft vertical, i.e. croquet-style. The details get a little complex, but you can read for yourself here: http://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/Equipment/Equipment Rules Final.pdf This section starts on page 21. I don't see a way of checking for conforming putters on the USGA website.
  7. I've found that if I use an intermediate target for alignment, I tend to leave putts short. When I focus on that target, I'm also imprinting the distance to that target on my mind. I now try to choose a target that is pin high or just past, which helps me to imprint both distance and line when I'm getting set up.
  8. I'd pick Team 2, for both net match or net stroke play. The 18 will make his fair share of per-net-birdies, along with some doubles or more, the 0.9 will make a few birdies and very few bogeys. The evenly matched pair is more likely to duplicate scores on a hole, both good and bad. http://popeofslope.com/guidelines/picking.html
  9. In my opinion, placing the ball removes all randomness from the situation, and that simply isn't appropriate. Nobody deserves to have the most perfect lie available, at least in my opinion. Increasing the drop height, or allowing a range, defeats the purpose of the rules changes around dropping, which was to limit the distance you could go from the original location. The limited relief area, the requirement that the ball stay within the relief area, and the height of the drop are all pieces to move towards that goal. I don't think the rule needs to be revised, its just not that difficult, and in my experience this year, the lower drop DOES decrease the roll-out. If anything, I could see raising the height to waist-high, its still lower than before, and able to be done without bending anything. Oh, the initial proposal was "through the air, as little as 1 inch", so you could have dropped from head high if you like.
  10. If they choose to play by the Rules of Golf, there's nothing they can do. They're not allowed to institute a penalty for something that the rules allow. And if the drop rule is changed this year, I'll be wrong. That's happened before, just ask my wife.
  11. In my opinion, I believe this rule will at least get a full year before being considered for change. There were pretty clearly stated reasons for their choice, best explained here: http://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/images/rules/rules-modernization/golf-new-rules/Explanation for Each Major Change in the New Rules of Golf for 2019 (1).pdf in item 17. Its no more complicated than the previous rule (drop from the height of THIS body part), and to be honest, I don't think it looks bad unless someone is trying to make it look bad. And if I see an attractive young lady ending over a bit, I'm not going to complain. The one rule which I think might be reconsidered is the flagstick rule. Based on every comment from the USGA and R&A, it seems to me like they didn't do any research on the effects. I'm not sure the effects on scoring will be significant, but there's at least a perception of advantage. I think it has the potential to save a few seconds, but without proper communication, also has the potential to lose a little time.
  12. This is kind of related, but also a bit off-topic, so I'll hide it.
  13. A. Your suggested solution is not in keeping with the pace of play policy. You have to fall behind far enough, be notified, get a bad time, be warned of the bad time, and get a second bad time, all before you get the first penalty stroke. 2. All of those additional people and that hardware would reduce the prize money. Those poor players are already supporting a pretty big group of administrators and support staff, they won't want to add to the overhead.
  14. Most times, a group being put on the clock doesn't make the news. It happens fairly regularly, and other groups may have been put on the clock in this event. Schwartzl MADE it news in his group with his reaction. I'm posting a few excerpts from the 17-18 Players Policy on Pace of Play. Handbook https://qualifying.pgatourhq.com/static-assets/uploads/2017-18_pga_tour_handbookregs_final.pdf I'm assuming that the same policy applies for this year. In my opinion, the officials should enforce the policy all the time, for every group, on every hole. To do anything else is to invite charges of favoritism. I believe the official did the right thing. And if Ben Crane is put on the clock every time he plays, perhaps he'll get the message. I don't know what the consequences of that might be, but he sure didn't look very professional in the moment.
×
×
  • Create New...