Jump to content

DaveP043

Member
  • Posts

    2,354
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

DaveP043 last won the day on May 22 2020

DaveP043 had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About DaveP043

  • Birthday 01/03/1956

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Northern Virginia
  • Interests
    You mean I need interests outside of golf?
  • Handicap:
    4.9

Recent Profile Visitors

6,379 profile views

DaveP043's Achievements

 

  (4/14)

5k

Reputation

  1. I've played TR 6 or 8 times, its always fun. Lots of visual intimidation, a few really demanding shots, a wide variety of holes, and generally in great shape. Some of the slower play is due to the greens. Very firm and pretty quick, with some really significant slopes, its a recipe for 3-putts or more. I believe that if the greens were slower by just a little, maybe 9 instead of 10 on the Stimp, play would move faster without compromising the challenge.
  2. I don't see this as a binary choice, I think most players can continue to get ready to play, and still take a few seconds to watch each player hit his/her shot. I won't be able to catch every single shot, but I see the vast majority of them as I continue my "process". And to a large extent I agree that having multiple eyes on each shot will decrease search times and round durations.
  3. I'm not trying to pick on any one poster, I just selected a single quote to illustrate my point. To make any blanket statement about the "right" pace of play means you're going to be wrong a bunch of the time. There are certainly courses where 4:30 is an appropriate expectation, I just played one of them last week, Tobacco Road. Heck, 4:30 is pretty good there, 5:00 isn't out of the question, although it seems really long to me. But a few years ago I was in Dornoch, Scotland, and was aghast that my second round of the day took 4 entire hours to play, it really should be closer to 3:30 there. I think its important for every one of us experienced players to help newer players learn to play efficiently, and to help everyone in our group to move along a little better.
  4. OK, and what does that have to do with regulating equipment? Do YOU have any factual information that indicates that someone will try to "reign back distance on drives"? I'm certain that there are people who would prefer that driving distance be reduced, but that goal hasn't been adopted by the Ruling Bodies, based on all published reports.
  5. Once again, the stated goal of the Distance Insights project is to minimize future increases in distance from equipment, NOT to roll back distance across the board.
  6. Agree completely, I've seen a very few courses where someone playing the appropriate tees has an un-manageable carry. But to the original question, there's no rule of golf.
  7. This isn't really news, I remember the Player's Advisory Council announcing their decision a couple of months ago. Obviously they've taken this time to work with the Ruling Bodies to create a Model Local Rule that's acceptable to all. The potential shortcomings you mention may be a result of that negotiation process, but it still seems to be a big step. I'd say its attempting to restrict the use of technology in creating the books, taking it back to what was available before the availability of laser-generated elevation surveys and computer-driven analysis methods. There has never been any prohibition on players going to a course and developing their own books, for both yardage and green contouring. As to what technology a player will use to develop his book, perhaps they'll have to rely in individual integrity.
  8. Consider Frederick, MD. A nice smaller town, some good restaurants and pubs, a bunch of good golf courses within reasonable drives. Off the top of my head I can think of Whiskey Creek, Worthington Manor, And Musket Ridge, and I know there are more.
  9. A big difference is that this Local Rule doesn't require manufacturers to develop completely different sets of equipment to meet the Rule. A "tour" golf ball would do that, would require separate R&D and manufacturing efforts, but the club length limit doesn't have that same effect. I'm with you, I wouldn't want to see two separate sets of equipment for "regular" players vs. "elite" players, but this length limit doesn't bother me. Its more similar to the "one ball rule", which is also used almost exclusively for elite competitions.
  10. This is from Interpretation 1 to the Definition of Immovable Obstruction: "Immovable Obstruction/1 – Turf Around Obstruction Is Not Part of Obstruction Any turf that is leading to an immovable obstruction or covering an immovable obstruction, is not part of the obstruction." So unless the Obstruction itself (the sprinkler head) interferes with your stance or area of intended swing, you don't get relief. Another possibility, in some cases the Committee could define that depression as part of the Obstruction, or as GUR. Look for white paint, or for something on the scorecard.
  11. Rule 17.1(d) says that you have 3 options for a Yellow Penalty Area: 1. Play the ball as it lies, in the Penalty Area 2. Replay the shot (Stroke and Distance Relief) 3. Take relief, keeping the point where the ball last entered the Penalty Area between you and the hole So no, you may not drop on the green side of the Penalty Area. You COULD use #3 and go further back beyond the green, if there's room, otherwise you'd have to replay the shot. Its also possible there's a Dropping Area available as an additional option.
  12. This, its the first actual change, more than 18 months after the "topics for future evaluation" were published, and 8 months after this specific change was outlined. For some reason, people are surprised that the Ruling Bodies did exactly what they said they were planning. Also, this is a topic now due to Mickelson and his complaining.
  13. Results from any one tournament mean pretty much nothing when evaluating long-term trends. @LICC is right when he says that equipment advances have contributed significantly to increasing driving distance at the top levels. I don't necessarily agree that equipment is the primary factor, its nearly impossible to separate the influence of any one change over the years. Its interesting to read those who say the Ruling Bodies should have done more sooner, that they should have been able to "crystal ball" the impact of some of the equipment advances, and limit them before they occurred. Its hard to argue that, really, I don't know that its really possible to predict the impact of changes. But in the recent action, the Ruling Bodies ARE looking at a trend towards longer drivers, and ARE taking an action to limit further distance increases at the top levels of golf. The rule will impact an extremely small percentage of those top players, but it will eliminate one mechanism for distance increases in the future.
  14. The USGA and R&A do have authority over Equipment Rules, but they really don't have any authority over course design and maintenance practices. As you say, they're trying to control the things they have authority to control. I don't have a problem with their stated intentions, I'm happy that they have said they won't try to decrease distance for all players. This step seems to me to be in line with the previous releases, it should have come as no surprise to anyone who's been paying attention.
  15. Which is it? Are they doing something that doesn't address any perceived issue, or is it silly to address perceived issues?
×
×
  • Create New...