Joel Dahmen accuses Kang of cheating

[wcbjr]

This thread is like the one on Nippon shafts, it just keeps going and going.

[bscinstnct]

Several of you keep using the word fact as though it is something that one can simply declare into existence.

 

Its a fascinating thing to see thats for sure!!!

 

How you figure a shot link volunteer says,

 

"He (Kang) sure did cheat. I was running ShotLink on the green. That ball never came close to entering up where he dropped… Should've been 200 yards back. Told your caddie who told the rules official but Kang threw a fit and got his way.

 

--- ShotLink volunteer Michael Klock talking to PGA Tour pro Joel Dahmen"

 

https://www.golfmagi...unteers-comment

 

Not easy to dismiss this

 

Independent testimony!

 

Ok, Im done

 

Wait

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

I'll make the case that the young volunteer shotlink guy may have had no better angle on the shot than Dahmen did, but it sounds like neither did he have the maturity or presence of mind to ask himself whether his perspective should hold sway over Kang's perspective...and by Kang's perspective I do mean both his physical perspective on the shot and his mental perspective on the process.

 

There are too many people in this world that just need to step back (and no, I do not think you are one of them, and I hope I'm not either :D) , because there are 8 lonely numbers between 1 and 10. Dahmen picked up his phone, spent a brief instant at 1, then jumped straight to 10. That's almost always a bad idea. A good, solid 5 or 6 would have sufficed. Once you've hit 10, there is no place else to go. And that's where Dahmen finds himself on this one. No place else to go.

 

Having the skills to properly run a Shotlink laser is not the same as having the skills to evaluate when you should reserve judgment on a topic or matter. Every Curly, Larry and Moe wants their 15 minutes.

 

I'm quite confident that there are guys out on Tour that would rather not draw Dahmen as a pairing, not so much for the specifics of calling someone a cheater, but for showing the poor judgment and loose cannon element of his own personality. And that's the way it should be. If you put Kang in a position where in future pairings, some other tour player treats him poorly, then you shouldn't expect there to be zero consequence to that. The thing is, Kang will be aware of it. But Dahmen probably won't because those players will probably just politely keep him at a chit-chat distance and hope they get out of the round without him going to twitter to out them for picking their nose on Hole 12.

 

I may not have made it as clear in other posts, but I'm reasonably of the opinion that Kang may have been wrong about his own evaluation of where the ball last crossed the margin. I'm opposed to tar and feathering him on Twitter with the cheater label, when it's much easier and more civil and gentlemanly to give him the benefit of the doubt. If I knew Kang was a known cheater from the Asian Tour, having been penalized, fined and DQ'd definitively for offenses, I'd obviously feel differently and with good reason.

 

But still, after all of this, I believe that it's more likely that Kang is a good guy that may or may not have made a mistake than Dahmen is a great guy to have a beer with. I wouldn't want my sister to date a guy that takes to Twitter to call people cheaters. But then again, I don't have a sister.

 

Yes, unfortunately, it's turned into a freak show. I wonder if it would have been as well known a story if JD had talked to a GD or Golfweek reporter and they had talked to him and the witnesses. That would have been better.

 

But, the bottom line is that it may be that pros cheat on these drops all the time. He tweeted, "It was a typical dispute about where or if it crossed the hazard"

 

"typical"

 

Could be that some/many/all pros use this judgment call to knowingly cheat all the time. Maybe it's a professional courtesy to not call each other out.

 

I don't know what happened here but it seems JD thought this was so egregious that he had to call him out. What made is more interesting were the witnesses. Especially the shotlink guy who seems quite sure of what he saw.

[jallen0119]

I'm convinced Dahmen believes Kang cheated but the PGA Tour officials do not and that's what matters. Once the cheating allegations were made I'm sure the PGA Tour and local officials tried to find evidence that Kang intentionally cheated but were not able to get real substantiated proof. Maybe if this happened on Day 2 or 3 the PGA would have had more time but given this happened on the last day towards the end of the tournament there wasn't much that could be done with regards to rulings once the tournament ended.

 

The Tour officials on the scene approved of the drop and later defended Kangs actions. To my knowledge they have no reason to defend or protect Kang so it's likely the evidence provided was not substantial enough to prove he cheated and in these instances, innocent until proven guilty is the guiding principle.

 

As for Dahmen, he made his case to the Tour officials, they disagreed or valued the word of Kang over Dahmen. Dahmen gained some followers and notoriety but overall he comes off looking bitter for choking on the last day. If there was clear video that proved his case he'd be justified in calling Kang a cheater but given it's one guys word versus another he should have handled the situation better and said nothing.

 

Fans, volunteers, Shot Link operators and all the patrons do not get a say in rulings and I place zero value on what they said happened. We have no idea what their motivations are, fame, financial gain, personal grudge, etc so when non-officials weigh in on their observations of a controversial event after the fact where there is no video proof to back up their statements, I discount everything they say.

 

They are often times asked for what they saw (where a ball crossed into hazard, where they think the ball landed, etc.). I would say they do get a "say in rulings". Up until this year, "fans" were able to call in and raise concerns about possible rules violations. So you are off the mark on that. Maybe their "motivation" is just seeing the game played by the rules and not some alternative scheme where they are trying to make a million dollars.

[NPVWhiz]

I caught that too. "Typical", which does seem to suggest that this is a gray area that the players often find themselves wading around in with one another. A lot of life is understanding that you don't need a flamethrower to light a wildfire. That, and lighting wildfires is illegal.

[Nixhex524]

As I tried to post many pages ago, but perhaps didn't do that great of a job, is along the same lines. It's bush league for Dahmen to go down the cheater route on twitter regardless of anything else said and done prior to that. People go on Twitter to get the re-tweets and followers, it is as simple as that, so for Dahmen to try to rally a crowd that way shows zero class. Maybe I missed it in another thread, or maybe it is too sensitive, but there is also a race factor. If Dahmen can call Kang a cheater on Twitter than someone else can call him the "r" word towards Kang.

 

I don't hold it against Dahmen in the long run, it's far from the first time someone went to Twitter without thinking. In fact, it is pretty much standard fare from leaders, no? It sure likes sour grapes from Dahmen. Motivated by what? Who knows. Could be he has something against Koreans, could be he has seen these types of drops one too many times and he blew his top, could be his bad play that day, maybe he signed the card and it is done and over with in his mind until after he had a few drinks and got angry again...so many possibilities. As we all know golf can drive you mad. It's just unfortunate that Dahmen didn't get his temporary madness under control before jumping on Twitter because it changes the whole tone of conversation away from Kang to some journeyman ranting cheater.

 

Um . . . what?

 

Race? Really... So whether he calls Kang the "C" word to his face or on Twitter, you'll still label him the "R" word.... Man, I wonder why people are hesitant to say things nowadays.... This thread has stayed pretty civil, please take trash like that elsewhere.

[ClintDagger]

As I tried to post many pages ago, but perhaps didn't do that great of a job, is along the same lines. It's bush league for Dahmen to go down the cheater route on twitter regardless of anything else said and done prior to that. People go on Twitter to get the re-tweets and followers, it is as simple as that, so for Dahmen to try to rally a crowd that way shows zero class. Maybe I missed it in another thread, or maybe it is too sensitive, but there is also a race factor. If Dahmen can call Kang a cheater on Twitter than someone else can call him the "r" word towards Kang.

 

I don't hold it against Dahmen in the long run, it's far from the first time someone went to Twitter without thinking. In fact, it is pretty much standard fare from leaders, no? It sure likes sour grapes from Dahmen. Motivated by what? Who knows. Could be he has something against Koreans, could be he has seen these types of drops one too many times and he blew his top, could be his bad play that day, maybe he signed the card and it is done and over with in his mind until after he had a few drinks and got angry again...so many possibilities. As we all know golf can drive you mad. It's just unfortunate that Dahmen didn't get his temporary madness under control before jumping on Twitter because it changes the whole tone of conversation away from Kang to some journeyman ranting cheater.

 

Um . . . what?

 

Race? Really... So whether he calls Kang the "C" word to his face or on Twitter, you'll still label him the "R" word.... Man, I wonder why people are hesitant to say things nowadays.... This thread has stayed pretty civil, please take trash like that elsewhere.

It was a good discussion for several days but it’s gone off the rails with some bizarre tangents for sure over the last 24 hours or so. Ha.

[shizblam]

There are people who thought Hideki Matsuyama shouldn’t have been penalized during the Hero World Challenge when he stomped on his divot, even with clear video evidence.

 

Dishonest players understand the ‘intent’ part of the rules, and are willing to use that to their advantage. No one can ever prove intent and they know this.

 

It’s similar to someone being 95% sure about where a ball crossed a hazard line and then becoming 100% sure when they realize the consequences of only being 95% sure.

 

Not everyone has integrity (look at the number of baggers in your local net events). It is only amplified with tens (hundreds?) of thousands of dollars on the line.

 

[ebrasmus21]

Have we decided who’s right and who’s wrong yet?

[NDS55]

The focus should be on whether or not Kang was wrong, rather on that he cheated. I'm sure that at least 99% of those who are saying that he cheated, were not actual witnesses. It's fine to voice opinion and state that you think he cheated, but to claim that you know that he cheated is taking advantage of internet anonymity.

If Dahmen was so sure, and was still bothered by the altercation, he should not have signed the score card. He wouldn't have been setting any precedent as that has happened in the past over disputes.

He said that there was no point at that time to not sign the card. How can it have possibly been a better time much later on to make his damning comments on twitter of all places?

There are now TWO golfers with tarnished reputations over this incident. Time will tell which one history treats harsher.

I personally don't think Kang cheated. I believe that there is a good chance that he was incorrect in his belief.

Both of these two will be watched and judged by their peers, and future actions will certainly be judged based on perceived history.

[new2g0lf]

I'm convinced Dahmen believes Kang cheated but the PGA Tour officials do not and that's what matters. Once the cheating allegations were made I'm sure the PGA Tour and local officials tried to find evidence that Kang intentionally cheated but were not able to get real substantiated proof. Maybe if this happened on Day 2 or 3 the PGA would have had more time but given this happened on the last day towards the end of the tournament there wasn't much that could be done with regards to rulings once the tournament ended.

 

The Tour officials on the scene approved of the drop and later defended Kangs actions. To my knowledge they have no reason to defend or protect Kang so it's likely the evidence provided was not substantial enough to prove he cheated and in these instances, innocent until proven guilty is the guiding principle.

 

As for Dahmen, he made his case to the Tour officials, they disagreed or valued the word of Kang over Dahmen. Dahmen gained some followers and notoriety but overall he comes off looking bitter for choking on the last day. If there was clear video that proved his case he'd be justified in calling Kang a cheater but given it's one guys word versus another he should have handled the situation better and said nothing.

 

Fans, volunteers, Shot Link operators and all the patrons do not get a say in rulings and I place zero value on what they said happened. We have no idea what their motivations are, fame, financial gain, personal grudge, etc so when non-officials weigh in on their observations of a controversial event after the fact where there is no video proof to back up their statements, I discount everything they say.

 

They are often times asked for what they saw (where a ball crossed into hazard, where they think the ball landed, etc.). I would say they do get a "say in rulings". Up until this year, "fans" were able to call in and raise concerns about possible rules violations. So you are off the mark on that. Maybe their "motivation" is just seeing the game played by the rules and not some alternative scheme where they are trying to make a million dollars.

 

We don't know their motivation and that's the problem with non-officials being given input on rules rulings, especially in the absence of actual evidence.

 

I've participated in a few team building events where a room of people are witness to a acted out scenario and then asked questions about what they saw. In every event I participated in, people would swear that what they saw was actually what happened despite their account of the events being very different from others. When we were shown the video of the scenario we witnessed, we realized that in the scope of the moment, our brains filled in a lot of details that didn't exist, from the color of clothing people wore, to things that we said, to what actually transpired.

 

In discussing / arguing about what happened, it became apparent that our memories were tainted by our personal experiences and biases. I'm not saying the motivations of the Shot Link guy or others that agreed with Dahmen were biased against Kang, but we know from exercises like the above that people don't always see and remember things as they actually occur.

[jallen0119]

I'm convinced Dahmen believes Kang cheated but the PGA Tour officials do not and that's what matters. Once the cheating allegations were made I'm sure the PGA Tour and local officials tried to find evidence that Kang intentionally cheated but were not able to get real substantiated proof. Maybe if this happened on Day 2 or 3 the PGA would have had more time but given this happened on the last day towards the end of the tournament there wasn't much that could be done with regards to rulings once the tournament ended.

 

The Tour officials on the scene approved of the drop and later defended Kangs actions. To my knowledge they have no reason to defend or protect Kang so it's likely the evidence provided was not substantial enough to prove he cheated and in these instances, innocent until proven guilty is the guiding principle.

 

As for Dahmen, he made his case to the Tour officials, they disagreed or valued the word of Kang over Dahmen. Dahmen gained some followers and notoriety but overall he comes off looking bitter for choking on the last day. If there was clear video that proved his case he'd be justified in calling Kang a cheater but given it's one guys word versus another he should have handled the situation better and said nothing.

 

Fans, volunteers, Shot Link operators and all the patrons do not get a say in rulings and I place zero value on what they said happened. We have no idea what their motivations are, fame, financial gain, personal grudge, etc so when non-officials weigh in on their observations of a controversial event after the fact where there is no video proof to back up their statements, I discount everything they say.

 

They are often times asked for what they saw (where a ball crossed into hazard, where they think the ball landed, etc.). I would say they do get a "say in rulings". Up until this year, "fans" were able to call in and raise concerns about possible rules violations. So you are off the mark on that. Maybe their "motivation" is just seeing the game played by the rules and not some alternative scheme where they are trying to make a million dollars.

 

We don't know their motivation and that's the problem with non-officials being given input on rules rulings, especially in the absence of actual evidence.

 

I've participated in a few team building events where a room of people are witness to a acted out scenario and then asked questions about what they saw. In every event I participated in, people would swear that what they saw was actually what happened despite their account of the events being very different from others. When we were shown the video of the scenario we witnessed, we realized that in the scope of the moment, our brains filled in a lot of details that didn't exist, from the color of clothing people wore, to things that we said, to what actually transpired.

 

In discussing / arguing about what happened, it became apparent that our memories were tainted by our personal experiences and biases. I'm not saying the motivations of the Shot Link guy or others that agreed with Dahmen were biased against Kang, but we know from exercises like the above that people don't always see and remember things as they actually occur.

 

Wouldn't that apply to Kang's version, as well?

[johndagolfer]

I'm convinced Dahmen believes Kang cheated but the PGA Tour officials do not and that's what matters. Once the cheating allegations were made I'm sure the PGA Tour and local officials tried to find evidence that Kang intentionally cheated but were not able to get real substantiated proof. Maybe if this happened on Day 2 or 3 the PGA would have had more time but given this happened on the last day towards the end of the tournament there wasn't much that could be done with regards to rulings once the tournament ended.

 

The Tour officials on the scene approved of the drop and later defended Kangs actions. To my knowledge they have no reason to defend or protect Kang so it's likely the evidence provided was not substantial enough to prove he cheated and in these instances, innocent until proven guilty is the guiding principle.

 

As for Dahmen, he made his case to the Tour officials, they disagreed or valued the word of Kang over Dahmen. Dahmen gained some followers and notoriety but overall he comes off looking bitter for choking on the last day. If there was clear video that proved his case he'd be justified in calling Kang a cheater but given it's one guys word versus another he should have handled the situation better and said nothing.

 

Fans, volunteers, Shot Link operators and all the patrons do not get a say in rulings and I place zero value on what they said happened. We have no idea what their motivations are, fame, financial gain, personal grudge, etc so when non-officials weigh in on their observations of a controversial event after the fact where there is no video proof to back up their statements, I discount everything they say.

 

They are often times asked for what they saw (where a ball crossed into hazard, where they think the ball landed, etc.). I would say they do get a "say in rulings". Up until this year, "fans" were able to call in and raise concerns about possible rules violations. So you are off the mark on that. Maybe their "motivation" is just seeing the game played by the rules and not some alternative scheme where they are trying to make a million dollars.

 

We don't know their motivation and that's the problem with non-officials being given input on rules rulings, especially in the absence of actual evidence.

 

I've participated in a few team building events where a room of people are witness to a acted out scenario and then asked questions about what they saw. In every event I participated in, people would swear that what they saw was actually what happened despite their account of the events being very different from others. When we were shown the video of the scenario we witnessed, we realized that in the scope of the moment, our brains filled in a lot of details that didn't exist, from the color of clothing people wore, to things that we said, to what actually transpired.

 

In discussing / arguing about what happened, it became apparent that our memories were tainted by our personal experiences and biases. I'm not saying the motivations of the Shot Link guy or others that agreed with Dahmen were biased against Kang, but we know from exercises like the above that people don't always see and remember things as they actually occur.

 

Wouldn't that apply to Kang's version, as well?

 

As many people have stated, it is very possible that Kang is wrong. Is that cheating? No, because per the rules, it is up to the player to determine the closest spot he felt the ball crossed. As the above post, and again, many, many posts, in this discussion, have stated it's possible that all parties believe what they saw. And since we cannot read minds, we have to take Kang's word that he dropped in the correct spot.

[bscinstnct]

I'm convinced Dahmen believes Kang cheated but the PGA Tour officials do not and that's what matters. Once the cheating allegations were made I'm sure the PGA Tour and local officials tried to find evidence that Kang intentionally cheated but were not able to get real substantiated proof. Maybe if this happened on Day 2 or 3 the PGA would have had more time but given this happened on the last day towards the end of the tournament there wasn't much that could be done with regards to rulings once the tournament ended.

 

The Tour officials on the scene approved of the drop and later defended Kangs actions. To my knowledge they have no reason to defend or protect Kang so it's likely the evidence provided was not substantial enough to prove he cheated and in these instances, innocent until proven guilty is the guiding principle.

 

As for Dahmen, he made his case to the Tour officials, they disagreed or valued the word of Kang over Dahmen. Dahmen gained some followers and notoriety but overall he comes off looking bitter for choking on the last day. If there was clear video that proved his case he'd be justified in calling Kang a cheater but given it's one guys word versus another he should have handled the situation better and said nothing.

 

Fans, volunteers, Shot Link operators and all the patrons do not get a say in rulings and I place zero value on what they said happened. We have no idea what their motivations are, fame, financial gain, personal grudge, etc so when non-officials weigh in on their observations of a controversial event after the fact where there is no video proof to back up their statements, I discount everything they say.

 

They are often times asked for what they saw (where a ball crossed into hazard, where they think the ball landed, etc.). I would say they do get a "say in rulings". Up until this year, "fans" were able to call in and raise concerns about possible rules violations. So you are off the mark on that. Maybe their "motivation" is just seeing the game played by the rules and not some alternative scheme where they are trying to make a million dollars.

 

We don't know their motivation and that's the problem with non-officials being given input on rules rulings, especially in the absence of actual evidence.

 

I've participated in a few team building events where a room of people are witness to a acted out scenario and then asked questions about what they saw. In every event I participated in, people would swear that what they saw was actually what happened despite their account of the events being very different from others. When we were shown the video of the scenario we witnessed, we realized that in the scope of the moment, our brains filled in a lot of details that didn't exist, from the color of clothing people wore, to things that we said, to what actually transpired.

 

In discussing / arguing about what happened, it became apparent that our memories were tainted by our personal experiences and biases. I'm not saying the motivations of the Shot Link guy or others that agreed with Dahmen were biased against Kang, but we know from exercises like the above that people don't always see and remember things as they actually occur.

 

Wouldn't that apply to Kang's version, as well?

 

Yes, you could argue that his perception was possibley more affected by bias due to a desired outcome than JD or all the witnesses.

[new2g0lf]

I'm convinced Dahmen believes Kang cheated but the PGA Tour officials do not and that's what matters. Once the cheating allegations were made I'm sure the PGA Tour and local officials tried to find evidence that Kang intentionally cheated but were not able to get real substantiated proof. Maybe if this happened on Day 2 or 3 the PGA would have had more time but given this happened on the last day towards the end of the tournament there wasn't much that could be done with regards to rulings once the tournament ended.

 

The Tour officials on the scene approved of the drop and later defended Kangs actions. To my knowledge they have no reason to defend or protect Kang so it's likely the evidence provided was not substantial enough to prove he cheated and in these instances, innocent until proven guilty is the guiding principle.

 

As for Dahmen, he made his case to the Tour officials, they disagreed or valued the word of Kang over Dahmen. Dahmen gained some followers and notoriety but overall he comes off looking bitter for choking on the last day. If there was clear video that proved his case he'd be justified in calling Kang a cheater but given it's one guys word versus another he should have handled the situation better and said nothing.

 

Fans, volunteers, Shot Link operators and all the patrons do not get a say in rulings and I place zero value on what they said happened. We have no idea what their motivations are, fame, financial gain, personal grudge, etc so when non-officials weigh in on their observations of a controversial event after the fact where there is no video proof to back up their statements, I discount everything they say.

 

They are often times asked for what they saw (where a ball crossed into hazard, where they think the ball landed, etc.). I would say they do get a "say in rulings". Up until this year, "fans" were able to call in and raise concerns about possible rules violations. So you are off the mark on that. Maybe their "motivation" is just seeing the game played by the rules and not some alternative scheme where they are trying to make a million dollars.

 

We don't know their motivation and that's the problem with non-officials being given input on rules rulings, especially in the absence of actual evidence.

 

I've participated in a few team building events where a room of people are witness to a acted out scenario and then asked questions about what they saw. In every event I participated in, people would swear that what they saw was actually what happened despite their account of the events being very different from others. When we were shown the video of the scenario we witnessed, we realized that in the scope of the moment, our brains filled in a lot of details that didn't exist, from the color of clothing people wore, to things that we said, to what actually transpired.

 

In discussing / arguing about what happened, it became apparent that our memories were tainted by our personal experiences and biases. I'm not saying the motivations of the Shot Link guy or others that agreed with Dahmen were biased against Kang, but we know from exercises like the above that people don't always see and remember things as they actually occur.

 

Wouldn't that apply to Kang's version, as well?

 

It applies to all versions but the rules say the golfers word is the determining factor in the absence of actual proof either by official observation or video replay.

 

Kang had motivation to say what he did but it came with a big risk that at some point later on a video would surface and prove he provided incorrect information to the official and be labelled a cheater. There seemed to be some bad blood between Dahmen and Kang, maybe it was Dahmen was frustrated with his round or somehow blamed Kang for it but most golfers would give their fellow competitor the benefit of the doubt, especially given there was not consensus by all onlookers as to where the ball crossed.

 

IMO, cheater has a huge stigma attached to it, especially in golf, so unless I was 100% certain and could prove my accusation I'd not accuse someone of cheating.

[Sean2]

 

What "facts" am i being oblivious to? Do you mean hyperbole and opinions? because if so those arent facts. Also dig up my post that says "Kang is a saint". Ill get my popcorn ready as i watch you twist yourself into knots trying to prove your statement. ( hint, you wont be able to)

Cant wait to see the mental gymnastics :)

 

 

Hadn't you heard? Hyperbole and opinion have replaced facts. Someone said recently, "Truth is relative. Truth is what you can make the [person] believe is the truth." The "narrative" is what is important. Should facts contradict the narrative they are either ignored and/or spun.

[Nixhex524]

 

It applies to all versions but the rules say the golfers word is the determining factor in the absence of actual proof either by official observation or video replay.

 

Kang had motivation to say what he did but it came with a big risk that at some point later on a video would surface and prove he provided incorrect information to the official and be labelled a cheater. There seemed to be some bad blood between Dahmen and Kang, maybe it was Dahmen was frustrated with his round or somehow blamed Kang for it but most golfers would give their fellow competitor the benefit of the doubt, especially given there was not consensus by all onlookers as to where the ball crossed.

 

IMO, cheater has a huge stigma attached to it, especially in golf, so unless I was 100% certain and could prove my accusation I'd not accuse someone of cheating.

 

What if you were only 95% certain?

[Pleasedwith3putts]

Have we decided who's right and who's wrong yet?

 

Apparently not. We are now over 600 posts deep and it's groundhog day since all the arguments and angles were covered in the first 50 or so posts

[Rob G 89]

2nd hole today and he is already dropping for penalty

[lowheel]

It's a shame we didn't have Twitter at the Wall. We'd have known those pesky White Walkers were on the way a lot sooner...

 

[lowheel]

What "facts" am i being oblivious to? Do you mean hyperbole and opinions? because if so those arent facts. Also dig up my post that says "Kang is a saint". Ill get my popcorn ready as i watch you twist yourself into knots trying to prove your statement. ( hint, you wont be able to)

Cant wait to see the mental gymnastics :)

 

 

Hadn't you heard? Hyperbole and opinion have replaced facts. Someone said recently, "Truth is relative. Truth is what you can make the [person] believe is the truth." The "narrative" is what is important. Should facts contradict the narrative they are either ignored and/or spun.

 

I know right? As if disagreeing with ones opinion is the end of the world. notice that he never answered or backed up any of his accusations. Ill never understand what happened in society. I simply expressed my issues with how he handled it after the fact while stating that it is entirely possible both parties are right. Narrative over reason is a disease we will all suffer from moving forward.I miss civil discourse. I have alot of friends on here where we disagree on 90% of things yet never lose our minds. Emotional investment for some is so transparent. its a shame because there are alot of good posts in the thread that are fair and even handed that get drowned out.

[Sean2]

What "facts" am i being oblivious to? Do you mean hyperbole and opinions? because if so those arent facts. Also dig up my post that says "Kang is a saint". Ill get my popcorn ready as i watch you twist yourself into knots trying to prove your statement. ( hint, you wont be able to)

Cant wait to see the mental gymnastics :)

 

 

Hadn't you heard? Hyperbole and opinion have replaced facts. Someone said recently, "Truth is relative. Truth is what you can make the [person] believe is the truth." The "narrative" is what is important. Should facts contradict the narrative they are either ignored and/or spun.

 

I know right? As if disagreeing with ones opinion is the end of the world. notice that he never answered or backed up any of his accusations. Ill never understand what happened in society. I simply expressed my issues with how he handled it after the fact while stating that it is entirely possible both parties are right. Narrative over reason is a disease we will all suffer from moving forward.I miss civil discourse. I have alot of friends on here where we disagree on 90% of things yet never lose our minds. Emotional investment for some is so transparent. its a shame because there are alot of good posts in the thread that are fair and even handed that get drowned out.

 

Yes. For some, not agreeing with their opinion/world view, is tantamount to a physical threat. I don't know if it is a deep seated sense of insecurity, the absolute need to be right, or a combination of both. But "civil discourse" is fast becoming an oxymoron.

[lowheel]

I caught that too. "Typical", which does seem to suggest that this is a gray area that the players often find themselves wading around in with one another. A lot of life is understanding that you don't need a flamethrower to light a wildfire. That, and lighting wildfires is illegal.

 

Interpretation calls will always be like that. Take it from people like me who have played pro golf for decades. On mini tours we dont have spotters or shotlink or a rules official on every hole so youre often left to your own devices and learn to work with your competitors to get stuff right and even then there are issues and disagreements like these. Personalities sometimes clash. Were talking about a 265 yard shot into a par 5, perspectives will obviously be different. As has been said its possible they both were somewhat right and somewhat wrong.

[lowheel]

What "facts" am i being oblivious to? Do you mean hyperbole and opinions? because if so those arent facts. Also dig up my post that says "Kang is a saint". Ill get my popcorn ready as i watch you twist yourself into knots trying to prove your statement. ( hint, you wont be able to)

Cant wait to see the mental gymnastics :)

 

 

Hadn't you heard? Hyperbole and opinion have replaced facts. Someone said recently, "Truth is relative. Truth is what you can make the [person] believe is the truth." The "narrative" is what is important. Should facts contradict the narrative they are either ignored and/or spun.

 

I know right? As if disagreeing with ones opinion is the end of the world. notice that he never answered or backed up any of his accusations. Ill never understand what happened in society. I simply expressed my issues with how he handled it after the fact while stating that it is entirely possible both parties are right. Narrative over reason is a disease we will all suffer from moving forward.I miss civil discourse. I have alot of friends on here where we disagree on 90% of things yet never lose our minds. Emotional investment for some is so transparent. its a shame because there are alot of good posts in the thread that are fair and even handed that get drowned out.

 

Yes. For some, not agreeing with their opinion/world view, is tantamount to a physical threat. I don't know if it is a deep seated sense of insecurity, the absolute need to be right, or a combination of both. But "civil discourse" is fast becoming an oxymoron.

 

Amen, Id like to like your post 1000 times. Its all from a deep seated sense of insecurity as you say. if you insulate yourself from opposing views it gives you a false sense of security and a sense of moral virtue which inflates your ego so much that you can never go back or question anything so you double and triple down instead of simply accepting that there are opposing views out there. thats not a good thing as it cripples the side of your brain that desperately wants you to think things through. Self doubt is the greatest tool afforded to man. Questioning things is always a good thing because life humbles us all one way or another. "safe spaces" are anything but. Always a pleasure to hear you opine! have a good one

[Sean2]

^^^Thanks for the kind words! I agree and well said. Minds are closing as a result. We look for things that support our belief system and ignore anything that goes against it. That is why facts can be inconvenient things if they don't support what you believe. Better to just ignore them, rationalize them, anything but entertain their merits. :-)

 

And, if someone's opinion does not share your own simply adopt the methodology invented by young children and call the person names.

[lowheel]

As I tried to post many pages ago, but perhaps didn't do that great of a job, is along the same lines. It's bush league for Dahmen to go down the cheater route on twitter regardless of anything else said and done prior to that. People go on Twitter to get the re-tweets and followers, it is as simple as that, so for Dahmen to try to rally a crowd that way shows zero class. Maybe I missed it in another thread, or maybe it is too sensitive, but there is also a race factor. If Dahmen can call Kang a cheater on Twitter than someone else can call him the "r" word towards Kang.

 

I don't hold it against Dahmen in the long run, it's far from the first time someone went to Twitter without thinking. In fact, it is pretty much standard fare from leaders, no? It sure likes sour grapes from Dahmen. Motivated by what? Who knows. Could be he has something against Koreans, could be he has seen these types of drops one too many times and he blew his top, could be his bad play that day, maybe he signed the card and it is done and over with in his mind until after he had a few drinks and got angry again...so many possibilities. As we all know golf can drive you mad. It's just unfortunate that Dahmen didn't get his temporary madness under control before jumping on Twitter because it changes the whole tone of conversation away from Kang to some journeyman ranting cheater.

 

Wow very well said. I think you articulated some things better than I could. Your last sentence is the real story here which is a shame.

 

He was asked what took him so long to play the hole by a friend/follower. He answered the question. It's really simple.

 

The only person who thinks Dahmen posting his thoughts on Twitter "is the real story" is you. Everyone else realizes this this the 21st century and people use social media to communicate. You don't have to challenge someone to a duel in order to solve an issue.

 

Are you that insecure that you require me to conform to your opinion? im actually not the only one who didnt like Dahmen running to twitter but youre so dug into your narrative that you cant see light.You do relaize there is no thread with this title if he doesnt run his mouth on twitter right? 21st century or not you dont use words online that you wouldnt use in person.Its a cowardly thing to do. Dont believe me? look at youtube video comments or twitter feeds of some. Would they dare walk up to visible minority and use the slurs they use online to their faces? Your feeble no true scotsman argument of "challenging someone to a duel" is a laughable at best. Dhamen not using that word to Kangs face but hiding behind it online says alot about him in my eyes. you disagree? cool but dont claim to speak for everyone. Youre simply expressing your opinion as am i. the difference is you cant handle mine and resort to ad hominem attacks because you lack the tools necessary to cope with it or argue it. If you cant accept that, thats on you man.

[ebrasmus21]

Have we decided who's right and who's wrong yet?

 

Apparently not. We are now over 600 posts deep and it's groundhog day since all the arguments and angles were covered in the first 50 or so posts

 

Shame on me I suppose but I didn’t think this thread would have the staying power that it obviously does.

 

Let Kang and the other guy duel it out for honor’s sake.

[lowheel]

Have we decided who's right and who's wrong yet?

 

Apparently not. We are now over 600 posts deep and it's groundhog day since all the arguments and angles were covered in the first 50 or so posts

 

Shame on me I suppose but I didn't think this thread would have the staying power that it obviously does.

 

Let Kang and the other guy duel it out for honor's sake.

 

Yesterday was the anniversary of Burr clipping Hamilton after all... ;)

[Sean2]

Have we decided who's right and who's wrong yet?

 

Apparently not. We are now over 600 posts deep and it's groundhog day since all the arguments and angles were covered in the first 50 or so posts

 

Shame on me I suppose but I didn't think this thread would have the staying power that it obviously does.

 

Let Kang and the other guy duel it out for honor's sake.

 

Yesterday was the anniversary of Burr clipping Hamilton after all... ;)

 

If I remember correctly it was over an incorrect drop.

[jallen0119]

As I tried to post many pages ago, but perhaps didn't do that great of a job, is along the same lines. It's bush league for Dahmen to go down the cheater route on twitter regardless of anything else said and done prior to that. People go on Twitter to get the re-tweets and followers, it is as simple as that, so for Dahmen to try to rally a crowd that way shows zero class. Maybe I missed it in another thread, or maybe it is too sensitive, but there is also a race factor. If Dahmen can call Kang a cheater on Twitter than someone else can call him the "r" word towards Kang.

 

I don't hold it against Dahmen in the long run, it's far from the first time someone went to Twitter without thinking. In fact, it is pretty much standard fare from leaders, no? It sure likes sour grapes from Dahmen. Motivated by what? Who knows. Could be he has something against Koreans, could be he has seen these types of drops one too many times and he blew his top, could be his bad play that day, maybe he signed the card and it is done and over with in his mind until after he had a few drinks and got angry again...so many possibilities. As we all know golf can drive you mad. It's just unfortunate that Dahmen didn't get his temporary madness under control before jumping on Twitter because it changes the whole tone of conversation away from Kang to some journeyman ranting cheater.

 

Wow very well said. I think you articulated some things better than I could. Your last sentence is the real story here which is a shame.

 

He was asked what took him so long to play the hole by a friend/follower. He answered the question. It's really simple.

 

The only person who thinks Dahmen posting his thoughts on Twitter "is the real story" is you. Everyone else realizes this this the 21st century and people use social media to communicate. You don't have to challenge someone to a duel in order to solve an issue.

 

Are you that insecure that you require me to conform to your opinion? im actually not the only one who didnt like Dahmen running to twitter but youre so dug into your narrative that you cant see light.You do relaize there is no thread with this title if he doesnt run his mouth on twitter right? 21st century or not you dont use words online that you wouldnt use in person.Its a cowardly thing to do. Dont believe me? look at youtube video comments or twitter feeds of some. Would they dare walk up to visible minority and use the slurs they use online to their faces? Your feeble no true scotsman argument of "challenging someone to a duel" is a laughable at best. Dhamen not using that word to Kangs face but hiding behind it online says alot about him in my eyes. you disagree? cool but dont claim to speak for everyone. Youre simply expressing your opinion as am i. the difference is you cant handle mine and resort to ad hominem attacks because you lack the tools necessary to cope with it or argue it. If you cant accept that, thats on you man.

 

Where are these "ad hominem attacks" of which you speak?

[lowheel]

Have we decided who's right and who's wrong yet?

 

Apparently not. We are now over 600 posts deep and it's groundhog day since all the arguments and angles were covered in the first 50 or so posts

 

Shame on me I suppose but I didn't think this thread would have the staying power that it obviously does.

 

Let Kang and the other guy duel it out for honor's sake.

 

Yesterday was the anniversary of Burr clipping Hamilton after all... ;)

 

If I remember correctly it was over an incorrect drop.

 

LOL well played!!! golf was a bloodsport back in the day!!