Joel Dahmen accuses Kang of cheating

[jim rockford]

bscinstinct, casey was lying 100%... didn't want to rock the TW boat...... what's he going to say "it was a horrible drop.. but it's TW so i didn't want backlash". do you really expect him to say that

 

the TW/wittenberg drop was horrendous and everyone knows...... for godsake, just go and watch it on YT if it's there....

[bscinstnct]

bscinstinct, casey was lying 100%... didn't want to rock the TW boat...... what's he going to say "it was a horrible drop.. but it's TW so i didn't want backlash". do you really expect him to say that

 

the TW/wittenberg drop was horrendous and everyone knows...... for godsake, just go and watch it on YT if it's there....

 

So, you accuse casey of lying

 

100%

 

Tiger was lying, too, right?

 

But you know Kang is telling the truth?

 

You see through a prism of your own design ; )

 

 

 

 

[bigeasy]

Sounds eerily similar to a drop a certain player had at the 2013 players, still amazed at the drop taken.

[MtlJeff]

bscinstinct, casey was lying 100%... didn't want to rock the TW boat...... what's he going to say "it was a horrible drop.. but it's TW so i didn't want backlash". do you really expect him to say that

 

the TW/wittenberg drop was horrendous and everyone knows...... for godsake, just go and watch it on YT if it's there....

 

So, you accuse casey of lying

 

100%

 

Tiger was lying, too, right?

 

But you know Kang is telling the truth?

 

You see through a prism of your own design ; )

 

I exit a thread as soon as we start talking about prisms.

 

I didn't sign up for this!

[jkumpire]

Having read through this topic, as others have done, I think there are several conclusions we have to face.

 

1. If the player was not accused of cheating on Twitter by his playing partner this is a non-story. The accuser and the person accused had a disagreement and the accuser picked up a can of gas and a few matches, lit up the gas, and threw it in a shed full of dynamite.

 

2. Accusing someone of Cheating without conclusive proof is a mistake. Even if the player made a bad drop the accuser is saying he knows the mind of his playing partner, who intentionally violated rules to his advantage and got away with it. If you have no clear proof he cheated you have no case. He might be 100% right, but he can't prove it.

 

3. Ultimately this is a disagreement about a drop, and things like this are never going to be settled until someone figures out a way to perfectly track every shot and ball movement.

 

4. The player accused of cheating probably had an obligation to drop at a different spot than he did. But once a rules official made the call the accuser needed to accept it and move on. Ultimately his twitter accusation and all the controversy he caused hurt the PGA Tour more than anyone else. He made the tour look bad, and hurt everyone's opportunity to make a living at the great sport of Golf.

[rafal]

This is worth seeing again. Never forget.

 

[ALIF]

Having read through this topic, as others have done, I think there are several conclusions we have to face.

 

1. If the player was not accused of cheating on Twitter by his playing partner this is a non-story. The accuser and the person accused had a disagreement and the accuser picked up a can of gas and a few matches, lit up the gas, and threw it in a shed full of dynamite.

 

2. Accusing someone of Cheating without conclusive proof is a mistake. Even if the player made a bad drop the accuser is saying he knows the mind of his playing partner, who intentionally violated rules to his advantage and got away with it. If you have no clear proof he cheated you have no case. He might be 100% right, but he can't prove it.

 

3. Ultimately this is a disagreement about a drop, and things like this are never going to be settled until someone figures out a way to perfectly track every shot and ball movement.

 

4. The player accused of cheating probably had an obligation to drop at a different spot than he did. But once a rules official made the call the accuser needed to accept it and move on. Ultimately his twitter accusation and all the controversy he caused hurt the PGA Tour more than anyone else. He made the tour look bad, and hurt everyone's opportunity to make a living at the great sport of Golf.

 

I'm glad it makes the Tour look bad. It should. They should have the cajones to correct a wrong, not sweep it under the rug to make themselves look good.

[soap1984]

Everyone saying we don't know for sure King cheated, on what basis are you saying he didn't cheat? You cannot prove one way or the other what happened, but what we do know is the following:

 

1) Who has any incentive to lie about what happened, Kang or Dehman/shot link volunteer/other witness? The other three get literally nothing, Kang gets extra money and a spot in the British open. Not tough to follow the motivations for behaviour there.

 

2) look at the stories being told; one sounds like a story of a cheater (95% then 100%) and the others sound 100% sure that the ball didn't cross the line.

 

Anyway the point is we will never know because cheaters will never admit to cheating, especially when they get away with it. Kangs official response was the most obvious response to give: I lied to the rules official, he bought it and "the rules official made the ruling and I stick by it". Well if the rules official didn't see the shot, then what he said is arguably useless insofar as Kangs integrity is concerned.

 

I've played golf with people like this; it literally is pitiful. If Dehman had any doubt, I am sure he would not have openly stated Kang cheated. If Kang had some doubt (which he did until he was told any doubt meant he may not get the drop he wanted) he was still incentivized to lie. The tour should do something in my opinion; this is an obvious scenario where being a nobody (probably partially because he's a cheater) has now benefited Kang whereas, if this happened to Tiger or DJ, there would be footage.

[Frankensteins Monster]

On xm radio , had a marshal from hole #10, guy was running shot link and had binoculars on the ball and said it never crossed the fairway

 

Binoculars squash the view plane further putting his assertions in doubt.

[hardcaliber]

Everyone saying we don't know for sure King cheated, on what basis are you saying he didn't cheat? You cannot prove one way or the other what happened, but what we do know is the following:

 

1) Who has any incentive to lie about what happened, Kang or Dehman/shot link volunteer/other witness? The other three get literally nothing, Kang gets extra money and a spot in the British open. Not tough to follow the motivations for behaviour there.

 

2) look at the stories being told; one sounds like a story of a cheater (95% then 100%) and the others sound 100% sure that the ball didn't cross the line.

 

Anyway the point is we will never know because cheaters will never admit to cheating, especially when they get away with it. Kangs official response was the most obvious response to give: I lied to the rules official, he bought it and "the rules official made the ruling and I stick by it". Well if the rules official didn't see the shot, then what he said is arguably useless insofar as Kangs integrity is concerned.

 

I've played golf with people like this; it literally is pitiful. If Dehman had any doubt, I am sure he would not have openly stated Kang cheated. If Kang had some doubt (which he did until he was told any doubt meant he may not get the drop he wanted) he was still incentivized to lie. The tour should do something in my opinion; this is an obvious scenario where being a nobody (probably partially because he's a cheater) has now benefited Kang whereas, if this happened to Tiger or DJ, there would be footage.

 

I guess I have a little bit of a problem with the repeated argument assuming someone is correct because they are more sure they are correct, as opposed to the other party who has 5% less certitude.

 

Just because someone is more confident or sure about their observation doesn't mean they are more correct.

 

If we are to play this game about believability, one might argue that the party who acknowledges a 5% margin of error about what point in space a tiny white ball is in 250 yards away seems to be the more credible source over the one who claims 0% margin of error.

 

I'm being a bit facetious with the previous line there. The point remains, claiming a greater degree of certitude doesn't make someone more factually correct.

[curitiba]

Dahmen is a straight up guy.

 

If there is no camera evidence then Kang is good according to the rules of golf!

[Bingo1976]

Anyway the point is we will never know because cheaters will never admit to cheating, especially when they get away with it.

 

Jimmy Walker disagrees.

[eagle1997]

From earlier in the thread. This post bears repeating.

 

Use you best judgment as to where the ball last crossed, the Rules thereafter will protect you:

 

 

 

 

 

26-1/17

 

 

Point Where Ball Last Crossed Margin of Lateral Water Hazard Determined and Ball Dropped and Played; Point Then Proves to Be Wrong Point

 

 

Q.In the circumstances described in Decision 26-1/16, where it becomes known that A's judgment of where his ball last crossed the margin of a lateral water hazard is incorrect, what is the ruling if A, having dropped a ball in the wrong place, plays it before his error is discovered?

 

A must continue play with the ball played from the wrong place, without penalty. Applying a penalty under Rule 26-1 for playing from the wrong place (see Rule 20-7) is not appropriate. Otherwise, a competitor would risk incurring a penalty every time he makes an honest judgment as to the point where his ball last crosses a water hazard margin and that judgment subsequently proves incorrect

[santasquatcha]

Dahmen is coming off like a two faced baby.

 

The moment Dahmen signed Kang’s card, the case was closed.

Dahmen validated that Kang’s card was accurate with his own signature.

 

Whether or not Kang cheated is no longer the issue.

 

The issue is Dahmen was too chicken to stand up to Kang at the scorers table in person. So he signs the card, and goes on an immature twitter rant, all the while damaging Kang’s image.

 

Dahmen looks weak. Kang could seek damages.

[gretch]

Not excusing Kang at all if he was knowingly cheating...

 

If I was in that situation and I reasonably certain that my ball crossed the hazard, I would take the drop where I deemed fit. I would not let a competitor talk me off it regardless of how demonstrative or how sure the competitor thought he was.

 

By reasonably certain, I mean above 80% or so. Unless i'm really truly not sure and its like a 50/50 thing, I'm just not giving the benefit of the doubt to the other guy. Not under those circumstances with those stakes. He might be wrong, regardless of how right he thinks he is. He may have ulterior motives, who knows.

 

Again, I don't condone cheating whatsoever. Shame on Kang if he knowingly cheated. But if it comes down to trusting what I think I saw vs. trusting what someone else thinks they saw, I'm going to trust myself.

 

[grm24]

The issue is Dahmen was too chicken to stand up to Kang at the scorers table in person. So he signs the card, and goes on an immature twitter rant, all the while damaging Kang's image.

So another out of touch hot take screed here at WRX. Go figure. Dahmen addressed the scorecard signing issue after his round. Had he not signed Kang's scorecard a PGA Tour Official would have signed/rubber stamped it instead. Dahmen refusing to sign Kang's card would have made no difference. Great hot take otherwise.

 

http://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/23976513/joel-dahmen-accuses-sung-hoon-kang-cheating

 

Asked why he signed Kang's card, Dahmen said: "At that point there is nothing I can do. If I don't sign the card, the rules official will. I would just be delaying the inevitable.''

[xxio]

So have the RO sign it. At least you stood up for it instead of looking for buddies on social media.

[ClintDagger]

The issue is Dahmen was too chicken to stand up to Kang at the scorers table in person. So he signs the card, and goes on an immature twitter rant, all the while damaging Kang's image.

So another out of touch hot take screed here at WRX. Go figure. Dahmen addressed the scorecard signing issue after his round. Had he not signed Kang's scorecard a PGA Tour Official would have signed/rubber stamped it instead. Dahmen refusing to sign Kang's card would have made no difference. Great hot take otherwise.

 

http://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/23976513/joel-dahmen-accuses-sung-hoon-kang-cheating

 

Asked why he signed Kang's card, Dahmen said: "At that point there is nothing I can do. If I don't sign the card, the rules official will. I would just be delaying the inevitable.''

Yeah any reasonable person understands that the scorecard signing issue is irrelevant. Dahmen has been consistent in his version of the events. I’ll bet in hindsight he wishes he hadn’t signed it but at the time he couldn’t anticipate that this would blow up. But at the end of the day him signing the card really means nothing as far as trying to get to the bottom of this.

[jmvargas]

Dahmen is coming off like a two faced baby.

 

The moment Dahmen signed Kang's card, the case was closed.

Dahmen validated that Kang's card was accurate with his own signature.

 

Whether or not Kang cheated is no longer the issue.

 

The issue is Dahmen was too chicken to stand up to Kang at the scorers table in person. So he signs the card, and goes on an immature twitter rant, all the while damaging Kang's image.

 

Dahmen looks weak. Kang could seek damages.

 

i'm not a lawyer but does Kang have a case for seeking damages?

 

....because if he does---he should!

[Hack Daddy]

Dahmen is coming off like a two faced baby.

 

The moment Dahmen signed Kang’s card, the case was closed.

Dahmen validated that Kang’s card was accurate with his own signature.

 

Whether or not Kang cheated is no longer the issue.

 

The issue is Dahmen was too chicken to stand up to Kang at the scorers table in person. So he signs the card, and goes on an immature twitter rant, all the while damaging Kang’s image.

 

Dahmen looks weak. Kang could seek damages.

 

Right, cause stopping play for 25 minutes, arguing your case, is weak.

 

Lmao

 

What flavor is that hatoraide you're sipping on?

 

 

[Hack Daddy]

Dahmen is coming off like a two faced baby.

 

The moment Dahmen signed Kang's card, the case was closed.

Dahmen validated that Kang's card was accurate with his own signature.

 

Whether or not Kang cheated is no longer the issue.

 

The issue is Dahmen was too chicken to stand up to Kang at the scorers table in person. So he signs the card, and goes on an immature twitter rant, all the while damaging Kang's image.

 

Dahmen looks weak. Kang could seek damages.

 

i'm not a lawyer but does Kang have a case for seeking damages?

 

....because if he does---he should!

 

Nope. He has to prove the accusation caused him to loose money. Last I checked, Kang is still able to play and make the same amount of money... he'll just be getting some dirty looks.

[jmvargas]

Dahmen is coming off like a two faced baby.

 

The moment Dahmen signed Kang's card, the case was closed.

Dahmen validated that Kang's card was accurate with his own signature.

 

Whether or not Kang cheated is no longer the issue.

 

The issue is Dahmen was too chicken to stand up to Kang at the scorers table in person. So he signs the card, and goes on an immature twitter rant, all the while damaging Kang's image.

 

Dahmen looks weak. Kang could seek damages.

 

i'm not a lawyer but does Kang have a case for seeking damages?

 

....because if he does---he should!

 

Nope. He has to prove the accusation caused him to loose money. Last I checked, Kang is still able to play and make the same amount of money... he'll just be getting some dirty looks.

 

 

yes but what about the damage to his reputation? or mental anguish??

[Bingo1976]

Dahmen is coming off like a two faced baby.

 

The moment Dahmen signed Kang's card, the case was closed.

Dahmen validated that Kang's card was accurate with his own signature.

 

Whether or not Kang cheated is no longer the issue.

 

The issue is Dahmen was too chicken to stand up to Kang at the scorers table in person. So he signs the card, and goes on an immature twitter rant, all the while damaging Kang's image.

 

Dahmen looks weak. Kang could seek damages.

 

i'm not a lawyer but does Kang have a case for seeking damages?

 

....because if he does---he should!

 

Nope. He has to prove the accusation caused him to loose money. Last I checked, Kang is still able to play and make the same amount of money... he'll just be getting some dirty looks.

 

 

yes but what about the damage to his reputation? or mental anguish??

 

If we all got to sue for mental anguish, I could retire based off the GMAC lost clubs thread alone

[Golfjack]

On xm radio , had a marshal from hole #10, guy was running shot link and had binoculars on the ball and said it never crossed the fairway

Nobody can track a moving ball with binoculars. Give it a try. Camera guys are already amazing at doing it, and they don't have to use cruddy binoculars.

 

I remember one time playing with a friend and I was standing 30 yards to the side, and he dropped it like 60 yards ahead of where I thought he crossed, but I didn't have the same angle as he did. How's that work? Unless we start putting cameras on caddies, we'll have to just believe the players.

[Pleasedwith3putts]

On xm radio , had a marshal from hole #10, guy was running shot link and had binoculars on the ball and said it never crossed the fairway

Nobody can track a moving ball with binoculars. Give it a try. Camera guys are already amazing at doing it, and they don't have to use cruddy binoculars.

 

 

I know what you are saying but if the angle is right it is possible. If the guy was pretty much straight in line with the play so the ball was coming towards him, you'd get a decent look if the focus stayed on infinity and you weren't zoomed in really tight. You wouldn't have to do a great deal with the binoculars as under those conditions the field of view doesn't change much, just some small vertical adjustments required on a long shot with a fairly flat trajectory.

 

Side on shots or those on any kind of angle are super difficult for sure

[Bingo1976]

Going back to the 95% comment....If Kang had said "look, I am really only 95% and cannot be 100% sure cos my FC is probably going to call me a cheat on social media" - what would happen? Does the ball get dropped where Dahmen thinks it should be because he is 100% sure? The rules official decides where to drop it even though he's not seen the ball flight? Play 2 balls - one form the original spot where he last played and the place he thinks it should have been dropped? Or a third from where Dahmen thinks it should have been played?

[Golfjack]

I don't get the 100 PCT sure thing anyway. How can anyone be 100 PCT sure? Anyone can be off by a few feet or even inches. Is that 99 pct? I actually think 95pct is a very realistic thing to say. To say 100 PCT actually is a lie for anybody. There is no laser tracking device on balls. Maybe we should have it lol. But really if that's the rule everyone would be just hitting everything like it was OB.

[ray9898]

LOL......people are making is sound like watching a golf ball in flight is the hardest thing man can do.

 

 

"but can you ever be really certain?"

[sekrah]

Dahmen is coming off like a two faced baby.

 

The moment Dahmen signed Kang's card, the case was closed.

Dahmen validated that Kang's card was accurate with his own signature.

 

Whether or not Kang cheated is no longer the issue.

 

The issue is Dahmen was too chicken to stand up to Kang at the scorers table in person. So he signs the card, and goes on an immature twitter rant, all the while damaging Kang's image.

 

Dahmen looks weak. Kang could seek damages.

 

i'm not a lawyer but does Kang have a case for seeking damages?

 

....because if he does---he should!

 

Good luck. Every witness that has made their name public on this matter says he took a horrible drop. The only guy who said he saw it Kang's way is the guy that significantly benefited financially from it.

[jallen0119]

LOL......people are making is sound like watching a golf ball in flight is the hardest thing man can do.

 

 

"but can you ever be really certain?"

 

No joke. I'd hate to play with some of these guys. It would be 5-6 hour round. They'd be unable to determine where their ball landed 200 yards away.