Jump to content

oikos1

Advanced Members
  • Posts

    3,469
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

oikos1's Achievements

495

Reputation

  1. So true. There are more "kids" now who can hit it 270+ off the tee yet still can't break 90. Kinda puts the USGA's definition that "A male scratch golfer, for rating purposes, can hit tee shots an average of 250 yards and can reach a 470-yard hole in two shots at sea level" in perspective. You still have to be sharp with the wedges, able to scramble when not, and make short (3'-8') putts.
  2. This makes me feel really old:
  3. Totally agree. Seems like he could stumble into a few major wins over the next ten years. In the end though, not quite what was projected for him when he first arrived on the scene.
  4. Not to mention, Rocco had huge back pain issues. https://www.golfwrx.com/544462/rocco-mediate-drank-during-competitive-tour-rounds-to-combat-his-back-pain-sober-since-2017/
  5. Yeah, but strokes gained says putting isn't that big of a deal. Just gotta get hot at the right time. Seven years and still hasn't timed it right.
  6. So you agree. The ruling bodies made a rule for the PGA Tour. The game needs less rules and it is rather disheartening to see the ruling bodies use rules in this way. Let the PGA Tour regulate distance through course set up. Losing a shot or two for taking risks (and conversely gaining a shot or two if successful) adds up pretty quickly over a four day tournament and would deal with the distance issue fairly. Less should be more when it comes to the rules of golf.
  7. Well, here ya go. Ian Woosnam's Power Game. The intro music is fantastic and worth the price of admission:
  8. That's an excellent observation and highlights the fact that distance is only a PGA Tour problem (and I'm not so sure the PGA Tour thinks it's a problem). I've yet to meet a golfer who complains they have too much distance with all of their clubs. Why does the USGA feel the need to regulate the PGA Tour? Especially when the only way they can do that is to change the rules of golf for all golfers.
  9. $100 million guaranteed for appearing and playing 15 professional golf events is crazy money. The whole key to this happening though is luring the up and coming young talent away from the PGA Tour. Big names to start, but they will need talented youth to sustain their tour. No doubt a player of Will Zalatoris's talent wouldn't be intrigued by guaranteed millions in his first few years on the PGL.
  10. I fail to see any reason why a "committee" would ever need to use this rule unless it was to discriminate against a player who was successful using a driver longer than 46 inches. Do you have a different reason why a committee would ever need to use this rule?
  11. Considering the ball is traveling within the space-time continuum there has to be an effect. How much I don't know but I vote yes.
  12. You seem to be suggesting the USGA and R&A, who want to be the de facto ruling bodies for all of golf, made a rule they should have no accountability for. So it goes like this, eh?: "We, the ruling bodies hereby make a rule but if you choose to use it, we won't be held accountable for said use, even though we are the ones who authorized it under the rules of golf." What a cop out. And some here are suggesting the rule doesn't even matter because it won't impact very many golfers. So now the ruling bodies are making meaningless rules that they have no accountability for? That makes zero sense. It absolutely amazes me how many don't realize how this undercuts their own credibility as the ruling bodies and as keepers of the game of golf.
  13. I really would love to see a thoughtful rebuttal to my three points in regards to the new driver length ruling but have yet to see anything of substance which only serves to validate them even more. I suppose when you've got nothing you've got to throw something.
  14. If a tournament committee knows there are several players in the local area who may enter the field at their tournament and the committee knows these players use drivers longer than 46 inches and the committee chooses to implement this rule, than yes, that would be discrimination. Whether it actually happens or not is not the point, as it would be difficult to prove anyway. The point is the ruling bodies created a rule within the rules that allow tournaments to do this. I'm surprised you don't take issue with such a rule. The R&A and the USGA have announced that a new Model Local Rule (MLR G-10) will be available beginning on 1 January 2022 to provide those running professional or elite amateur golf competitions with the option of limiting the maximum length of a golf club (excluding putters) to 46 inches. Not only does that clearly allow for tournaments to discriminate at their discretion, it clearly is another path to the dreaded bifurcation. So to my first point, why didn't the USGA and R&A demonstrate some cajones and make the rule across the board and accept the responsibility that comes with such a rule. Instead, they pass the buck and make a model local rule that has the potential to discriminate, leads to bifurcation and a rule that even you claim won't impact most golfers anyway. None of that makes any sense and ultimately makes a mockery of the vaunted rules of golf.
×
×
  • Create New...