Joel Dahmen accuses Kang of cheating

[lchang]

Unfortunately there is no satisfactory resolution to this. In Kang's mind he feels his drop was legitimate. In Dahmen's mind he feels Kang's drop wasn't.

 

In addition, eyewitness "testimony" can be unreliable.

 

"In Kang's mind he feels the drop was legitimate". Really? Maybe in Kang's mind he know's he got away with cheating his way into a bigger payday and an Open Championship birth.

 

I am giving him the benefit of the doubt as, unlike you, I had no idea what was going through his mind.

 

This is completely reasonable.

 

Better yet: “I’m pretty sure I believe Kang didn’t cheat because I’ve known him for many years and that’s why I believe him.”

 

“Benefit is the doubt” is the next best thing.

 

It just doesn’t make any sense to say, “I don’t know Kang, but I’m absolutely certain he didn’t lie to the rules official. Instead, everyone else is adamantly lying because they’re on a witch hunt. So: case closed.”

[golfortennis]

 

Golf was uniquely stupid in allowing people, especially on social media, to contact them and point out things that caused decisions to change. Glad they put a stop to that.

 

Why? Because if a ref didn't see it, it didn't happen?

[Longballbogey]

Sometimes you didn't see what you saw. Example, a ref is standing right by the play and calls it out of bounds, only to be proven wrong by instant replay. The eye can lie.

[MtlJeff]

You know no one has mentioned it .....but eyewitness testimony is very unreliable

[jgonz69]

You know no one has mentioned it .....but eyewitness testimony is very unreliable

It is or isn't depending on what agenda you're pushing.

[iBanesto]

Drop has approved by a rules official, so Kang did not cheat.

 

Case closed.

 

Nope. Again: IF a hypothetical player lies to a rules official, and the official subsequently makes a ruling, the hypothetical player cheated.

 

So, not case closed.

 

Not saying Kang lied, but IF he did, he cheated.

 

Hypothetically I went to Pluto :superman:

 

Hypothetically I am dating Margot Robbie :taunt:

 

The subjectivity lies in both Dahmen and Kang's story.

 

No one can provide conclusive, objective evidence.

 

The rules official has made his decision, within the rules of golf.

 

The tournament is over. The players got paid. The media got their story.

 

Case closed.

 

Ok the case is "closed" in that no one's going to change anything or lose any money or fedex points, etc.

 

But why do you insist on KNOWING that Kang didn't cheat? It's weird that you're so certain and argue so strenuously.

 

He might have lied (and thus cheated) and gotten away with it. He might not have lied, saw it clearly, and did the right thing. You have no idea.

 

I just keep pointing out that your logic is wrong if you insist that: He didn't cheat simply because the rules official approved the drop. I can't tell if you understand and agree with that.

 

Hmm... I thought we lived in a society where a person is innocent until proven guilty.

 

Guess not.

 

People are all too happy to say Kang is a cheater/guilty, which is unfair as they cannot substantiate their claim.

 

You cannot go making accusations based on visceral opinion without any objective evidence.

[sui generis]

Drop has approved by a rules official, so Kang did not cheat.

 

Case closed.

 

Nope. Again: IF a hypothetical player lies to a rules official, and the official subsequently makes a ruling, the hypothetical player cheated.

 

So, not case closed.

 

Not saying Kang lied, but IF he did, he cheated.

 

Hypothetically I went to Pluto :superman:

 

Hypothetically I am dating Margot Robbie :taunt:

 

The subjectivity lies in both Dahmen and Kang's story.

 

No one can provide conclusive, objective evidence.

 

The rules official has made his decision, within the rules of golf.

 

The tournament is over. The players got paid. The media got their story.

 

Case closed.

 

Ok the case is "closed" in that no one's going to change anything or lose any money or fedex points, etc.

 

But why do you insist on KNOWING that Kang didn't cheat? It's weird that you're so certain and argue so strenuously.

 

He might have lied (and thus cheated) and gotten away with it. He might not have lied, saw it clearly, and did the right thing. You have no idea.

 

I just keep pointing out that your logic is wrong if you insist that: He didn't cheat simply because the rules official approved the drop. I can't tell if you understand and agree with that.

 

Hmm... I thought we lived in a society where a person is innocent until proven guilty.

 

Guess not.

 

People are all too happy to say Kang is a cheater/guilty, which is unfair as they cannot substantiate their claim.

 

You cannot go making accusations based on visceral opinion without any objective evidence.

 

Hey, don't forget Twitter makes it real! Just look around at the genuises who employ it. :swoon:

[bscinstnct]

Drop has approved by a rules official, so Kang did not cheat.

 

Case closed.

 

Nope. Again: IF a hypothetical player lies to a rules official, and the official subsequently makes a ruling, the hypothetical player cheated.

 

So, not case closed.

 

Not saying Kang lied, but IF he did, he cheated.

 

Hypothetically I went to Pluto :superman:

 

Hypothetically I am dating Margot Robbie :taunt:

 

The subjectivity lies in both Dahmen and Kang's story.

 

No one can provide conclusive, objective evidence.

 

The rules official has made his decision, within the rules of golf.

 

The tournament is over. The players got paid. The media got their story.

 

Case closed.

 

Ok the case is "closed" in that no one's going to change anything or lose any money or fedex points, etc.

 

But why do you insist on KNOWING that Kang didn't cheat? It's weird that you're so certain and argue so strenuously.

 

He might have lied (and thus cheated) and gotten away with it. He might not have lied, saw it clearly, and did the right thing. You have no idea.

 

I just keep pointing out that your logic is wrong if you insist that: He didn't cheat simply because the rules official approved the drop. I can't tell if you understand and agree with that.

 

Hmm... I thought we lived in a society where a person is innocent until proven guilty.

 

Guess not.

 

People are all too happy to say Kang is a cheater/guilty, which is unfair as they cannot substantiate their claim.

 

You cannot go making accusations based on visceral opinion without any objective evidence.

 

We cant

 

But JD can

 

Just like TWatson did...

 

 

Watson Says Player Cheated in TV Match

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1983/11/29/watson-says-player-cheated-in-tv-match/4de93259-7e81-44db-9b36-865c19879ea5/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8e38821fa7ef

 

 

Whats different about the JD/Kang situation is that JD has eye witnesses willing to identify themselves by name and state that Kang cheated.

[lowheel]

one of those witnesses was a very vocal friend of his so the bias is there and can easily influence the rest. Dahmen looks worse here for running on twitter like a baby.make a clear and concise statement through golf channel or cbs and move on.Going on social media playing the tough guy is pretty sad really. Interpretation rulings like this from 250 yards out are impossible when its a 50/50 judgement call.

[bscinstnct]

one of those witnesses was a very vocal friend of his so the bias is there and can easily influence the rest. Dahmen looks worse here for running on twitter like a baby.make a clear and concise statement through golf channel or cbs and move on.Going on social media playing the tough guy is pretty sad really. Interpretation rulings like this from 250 yards out are impossible when its a 50/50 judgement call.

 

Youre right

 

JD and all the witnesses should have gone on gc or cbs and called Kang a cheater.

[oikos1]

Gotta wonder how many golfers who think Kang cheated drop their ball exactly where their opponent tells them, every time.

[lowheel]

one of those witnesses was a very vocal friend of his so the bias is there and can easily influence the rest. Dahmen looks worse here for running on twitter like a baby.make a clear and concise statement through golf channel or cbs and move on.Going on social media playing the tough guy is pretty sad really. Interpretation rulings like this from 250 yards out are impossible when its a 50/50 judgement call.

 

Youre right

 

JD and all the witnesses should have gone on gc or cbs and called Kang a cheater.

 

Seriously though do you think Dahmen called Kang a cheater to his face? hint he didnt. He did it from the safety of his smart phone.I respect that hes a cancer survivor and all that but he handled it the wrong way. None of the witnesses have any superior vantage point then the player who hit the shot. Dahmen by defintion was standing 8-10 feet to his side when it happened. Just that small difference alone and angle can give you false depth perception.its not black and white as you seem to suggest. Dahmen in my opinion showed his cards in the way he called it out which has left me very suspicious of his motivations

[lchang]

Drop has approved by a rules official, so Kang did not cheat.

 

Case closed.

 

Nope. Again: IF a hypothetical player lies to a rules official, and the official subsequently makes a ruling, the hypothetical player cheated.

 

So, not case closed.

 

Not saying Kang lied, but IF he did, he cheated.

 

Hypothetically I went to Pluto :superman:

 

Hypothetically I am dating Margot Robbie :taunt:

 

The subjectivity lies in both Dahmen and Kang's story.

 

No one can provide conclusive, objective evidence.

 

The rules official has made his decision, within the rules of golf.

 

The tournament is over. The players got paid. The media got their story.

 

Case closed.

 

Ok the case is "closed" in that no one's going to change anything or lose any money or fedex points, etc.

 

But why do you insist on KNOWING that Kang didn't cheat? It's weird that you're so certain and argue so strenuously.

 

He might have lied (and thus cheated) and gotten away with it. He might not have lied, saw it clearly, and did the right thing. You have no idea.

 

I just keep pointing out that your logic is wrong if you insist that: He didn't cheat simply because the rules official approved the drop. I can't tell if you understand and agree with that.

 

Hmm... I thought we lived in a society where a person is innocent until proven guilty.

 

Guess not.

 

People are all too happy to say Kang is a cheater/guilty, which is unfair as they cannot substantiate their claim.

 

You cannot go making accusations based on visceral opinion without any objective evidence.

 

Where did I say he’s guilty? How many times did I say, I am NOT saying he cheated?! I said, if he lied, he cheated. You keep saying, because the ref went with his word, he did not cheat. And I keep saying, that’s not true: if he lied to the ref (and the ref believed him), he cheated.

 

I’ve repeated myself too many times by now, I think....

[iBanesto]

 

Where did I say he’s guilty? How many times did I say, I am NOT saying he cheated?! I said, if he lied, he cheated. You keep saying, because the ref went with his word, he did not cheat. And I keep saying, that’s not true: if he lied to the ref (and the ref believed him), he cheated.

 

I’ve repeated myself too many times by now, I think....

 

You keep saying "if", if this if that. You can create many hypothetical situation but can you substantiate it? Nope.

 

What if Dahmen lied? How about that scenario?

 

How about if Dahmen lied and Kang lied as well? How about this conundrum?

 

What if Dahmen has a personal vendetta against Kang?

 

If England had beaten Belgium, they probably would have lost to Brazil if they made the QF.

[bscinstnct]

one of those witnesses was a very vocal friend of his so the bias is there and can easily influence the rest. Dahmen looks worse here for running on twitter like a baby.make a clear and concise statement through golf channel or cbs and move on.Going on social media playing the tough guy is pretty sad really. Interpretation rulings like this from 250 yards out are impossible when its a 50/50 judgement call.

 

Youre right

 

JD and all the witnesses should have gone on gc or cbs and called Kang a cheater.

 

Seriously though do you think Dahmen called Kang a cheater to his face? hint he didnt. He did it from the safety of his smart phone.I respect that hes a cancer survivor and all that but he handled it the wrong way. None of the witnesses have any superior vantage point then the player who hit the shot. Dahmen by defintion was standing 8-10 feet to his side when it happened. Just that small difference alone and angle can give you false depth perception.its not black and white as you seem to suggest. Dahmen in my opinion showed his cards in the way he called it out which has left me very suspicious of his motivations

 

Did JD accuse him to his face?

 

"Klock was the ShotLink volunteer on the 10th hole.

 

Klock, like Dahmen, is sure Kang’s ball never crossed the hazard (and thus he took an illegal drop).

 

“Kang’s second shot was very far left and at no point ever came close to being in bounds from the initial point of entry 225 yards or so back,” Klock told Golfweek Monday, also saying the ball was six or eight feet deep in the hazard.

 

“Kang was insistent (’95 percent sure’ in his own words) his ball came back and entered the hazard at about 35 yards out. I caught bits and pieces of the exchange, but the rules official did quote ’95 percent sure is not 100 percent sure’ before driving Kang back to look at the line again. Kang then returned and argued some more with Dahmen, to which

 

(Dahmen) replied, ‘If you can sleep at night, then take your drop.”

 

http://www.golfwrx.com/521742/sung-kang-cheated-additional-witnesses-say-what-now/

[Ashley Schaeffer]

one of those witnesses was a very vocal friend of his so the bias is there and can easily influence the rest. Dahmen looks worse here for running on twitter like a baby.make a clear and concise statement through golf channel or cbs and move on.Going on social media playing the tough guy is pretty sad really. Interpretation rulings like this from 250 yards out are impossible when its a 50/50 judgement call.

 

Youre right

 

JD and all the witnesses should have gone on gc or cbs and called Kang a cheater.

 

Seriously though do you think Dahmen called Kang a cheater to his face? hint he didnt. He did it from the safety of his smart phone.I respect that hes a cancer survivor and all that but he handled it the wrong way. None of the witnesses have any superior vantage point then the player who hit the shot. Dahmen by defintion was standing 8-10 feet to his side when it happened. Just that small difference alone and angle can give you false depth perception.its not black and white as you seem to suggest. Dahmen in my opinion showed his cards in the way he called it out which has left me very suspicious of his motivations

 

Are you sure?

[BB28403]

 

Ya see son, that there keyboard on your smartphone, ya see, well it can type anything it wants on reddit. See I could type that chickens are not edible, ya see? And that would save you and me a great deal of trouble. Are you listening? Now is anyone going to believe what the magic phone keyboard says, well they just have to be the believen type. Ya hear son?

 

Sorry, just pointing out that other than JD, aren't the only reports that confirm it's a bad drop coming from that shotlink guy via Twitter?

 

Thanks for the unnecessary condescension though.

 

Anyways, the tourney's done, the Rules were followed and the scores are final. No point wasting any more time on it.

 

If a cartoon is condescending then my childhood was full of condensation. Lol

[CasualLie]

Been meaning to check out this thread since I saw the news but internet too slow in middle of nowhere North Yorkshire at the beach. And of course, other priorities...

 

Still, was interested in the thread because when I saw the news it just brought back the sting of losing in the finals of a season long match play on a similar situation. I was 1 down on 18 when my opponent teed one into the hazard down the right side on a dogleg right. The drop is crucial because it's the difference of whether or not you have a look at the green or still behind the dogleg with no look.

 

I thought my opponent took a very generous drop and far too close. But I fast forwarded in my head how would a dispute play out. I quickly determined that (1) I ultimately really don't have any say so if my opponent insists he is dropping in the right place and (2) its a bit uncomfortable to try to win 18 on a dispute. And (3) I'm new to the club and didn't want to get picky with the membership. So I did all I could to win the hole, lipped out my putt and essentially lost by a fraction of an inch. It sure didn't feel good...

 

So this news comes out and reminds me of just how tough this rule can be that the player is the ultimate decider on where to drop when there is a lot at stake. After all the controversy, what's the alternative? Eventually the laser system of Shotlink will be replaced with better cameras. I don't know if they will be deployed everywhere, but someday ball tracking will overrule human judgment when there is a dispute. Until that day, then I don't see the point of someone like JD making such a big issue. Yes, got should do what you can to protect the field, but once the ruling is made, then show some class. JD even said it best at the drop..." If you can sleep at night with that drop then go ahead" (or something like that). So say your side, then shut up, leave Twitter out of it.

 

I do suspect based on all that was said and the shape of the hole, Kang was mistaken. Purposely so? It's not for me to say, so I can't brand him a cheater.

 

And I also suspect this happens a lot more on tour than we hear about. JD probably thought Kang pushed it too far with the taking liberty like he has probably seen/ done before, or maybe JD was just upset with himself and vented out. Maybe he was jealous of Kang's charge that day....who really knows? But stay off Twitter with the cheating accusations; that is taking it too far.

 

 

[seve1972]

Been meaning to check out this thread since I saw the news but internet too slow in middle of nowhere North Yorkshire at the beach. And of course, other priorities...

 

Still, was interested in the thread because when I saw the news it just brought back the sting of losing in the finals of a season long match play on a similar situation. I was 1 down on 18 when my opponent teed one into the hazard down the right side on a dogleg right. The drop is crucial because it's the difference of whether or not you have a look at the green or still behind the dogleg with no look.

 

I thought my opponent took a very generous drop and far too close. But I fast forwarded in my head how would a dispute play out. I quickly determined that (1) I ultimately really don't have any say so if my opponent insists he is dropping in the right place and (2) its a bit uncomfortable to try to win 18 on a dispute. And (3) I'm new to the club and didn't want to get picky with the membership. So I did all I could to win the hole, lipped out my putt and essentially lost by a fraction of an inch. It sure didn't feel good...

 

So this news comes out and reminds me of just how tough this rule can be that the player is the ultimate decider on where to drop when there is a lot at stake. After all the controversy, what's the alternative? Eventually the laser system of Shotlink will be replaced with better cameras. I don't know if they will be deployed everywhere, but someday ball tracking will overrule human judgment when there is a dispute. Until that day, then I don't see the point of someone like JD making such a big issue. Yes, got should do what you can to protect the field, but once the ruling is made, then show some class. JD even said it best at the drop..." If you can sleep at night with that drop then go ahead" (or something like that). So say your side, then shut up, leave Twitter out of it.

 

I do suspect based on all that was said and the shape of the hole, Kang was mistaken. Purposely so? It's not for me to say, so I can't brand him a cheater.

 

And I also suspect this happens a lot more on tour than we hear about. JD probably thought Kang pushed it too far with the taking liberty like he has probably seen/ done before, or maybe JD was just upset with himself and vented out. Maybe he was jealous of Kang's charge that day....who really knows? But stay off Twitter with the cheating accusations; that is taking it too far.

 

Your post is undeniably too long and absurd if you think he was jealous.....

[CasualLie]

Maybe

[PuttLeftHitRight]

T5 for Dahmen at Greenbriar

[MtlJeff]

T5 for Dahmen at Greenbriar

 

Waiting for the tweets.....

[sekrah]

Unfortunately there is no satisfactory resolution to this. In Kang's mind he feels his drop was legitimate. In Dahmen's mind he feels Kang's drop wasn't.

 

In addition, eyewitness "testimony" can be unreliable.

 

"In Kang's mind he feels the drop was legitimate". Really? Maybe in Kang's mind he know's he got away with cheating his way into a bigger payday and an Open Championship birth.

 

I am giving him the benefit of the doubt as, unlike you, I had no idea what was going through his mind.

 

 

He really doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. Multiple people said he was wrong.

[gatorpedsMD]

T5 for Dahmen at Greenbriar

 

love the bucket hat

[Darth Putter]

Both are in the field at the John Deere.

 

I'm thinking 1:00 pm Thursday tee time with Bryson.

[MtlJeff]

Both are in the field at the John Deere.

 

I'm thinking 1:00 pm Thursday tee time with Bryson.

 

Dahmen gonna show up with Michael Klock and Bobby Yosai carrying chains, baseball bats with nails through them and piano legs. You wanna dance Kang? Well I want to poke-aaaa....

[Golfjack]

Some strong opinions on here. I'd say get Kang and Dahmen to play a one on one match play for 1 million dollars and record every single little nuance to see if anyone cheats.

[ALIF]

Unfortunately there is no satisfactory resolution to this. In Kang's mind he feels his drop was legitimate. In Dahmen's mind he feels Kang's drop wasn't.

 

In addition, eyewitness "testimony" can be unreliable.

 

"In Kang's mind he feels the drop was legitimate". Really? Maybe in Kang's mind he know's he got away with cheating his way into a bigger payday and an Open Championship birth.

 

I am giving him the benefit of the doubt as, unlike you, I had no idea what was going through his mind.

 

Please re-read my post. I did not say I had any idea what was going through his mind. I only offered an alternative scenario of what could possibly have been going on in his mind. Please do not put words in my mouth.

[lowheel]

one of those witnesses was a very vocal friend of his so the bias is there and can easily influence the rest. Dahmen looks worse here for running on twitter like a baby.make a clear and concise statement through golf channel or cbs and move on.Going on social media playing the tough guy is pretty sad really. Interpretation rulings like this from 250 yards out are impossible when its a 50/50 judgement call.

 

Youre right

 

JD and all the witnesses should have gone on gc or cbs and called Kang a cheater.

 

Seriously though do you think Dahmen called Kang a cheater to his face? hint he didnt. He did it from the safety of his smart phone.I respect that hes a cancer survivor and all that but he handled it the wrong way. None of the witnesses have any superior vantage point then the player who hit the shot. Dahmen by defintion was standing 8-10 feet to his side when it happened. Just that small difference alone and angle can give you false depth perception.its not black and white as you seem to suggest. Dahmen in my opinion showed his cards in the way he called it out which has left me very suspicious of his motivations

 

Did JD accuse him to his face?

 

"Klock was the ShotLink volunteer on the 10th hole.

 

Klock, like Dahmen, is sure Kang's ball never crossed the hazard (and thus he took an illegal drop).

 

"Kang's second shot was very far left and at no point ever came close to being in bounds from the initial point of entry 225 yards or so back," Klock told Golfweek Monday, also saying the ball was six or eight feet deep in the hazard.

 

"Kang was insistent ('95 percent sure' in his own words) his ball came back and entered the hazard at about 35 yards out. I caught bits and pieces of the exchange, but the rules official did quote '95 percent sure is not 100 percent sure' before driving Kang back to look at the line again. Kang then returned and argued some more with Dahmen, to which

 

(Dahmen) replied, 'If you can sleep at night, then take your drop."

 

http://www.golfwrx.c...s-say-what-now/

 

So like i said didnt have the sack to call him that to his face and then proceeded to run and yell it on twitter like a baby. Ive got no skin in this game other than how Dahmen acted after the fact. thats the telling part. he still shook his hand on the 18th and still signed his card and then became a keyboard warrior.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

one of those witnesses was a very vocal friend of his so the bias is there and can easily influence the rest. Dahmen looks worse here for running on twitter like a baby.make a clear and concise statement through golf channel or cbs and move on.Going on social media playing the tough guy is pretty sad really. Interpretation rulings like this from 250 yards out are impossible when its a 50/50 judgement call.

 

Youre right

 

JD and all the witnesses should have gone on gc or cbs and called Kang a cheater.

 

Seriously though do you think Dahmen called Kang a cheater to his face? hint he didnt. He did it from the safety of his smart phone.I respect that hes a cancer survivor and all that but he handled it the wrong way. None of the witnesses have any superior vantage point then the player who hit the shot. Dahmen by defintion was standing 8-10 feet to his side when it happened. Just that small difference alone and angle can give you false depth perception.its not black and white as you seem to suggest. Dahmen in my opinion showed his cards in the way he called it out which has left me very suspicious of his motivations

 

Did JD accuse him to his face?

 

"Klock was the ShotLink volunteer on the 10th hole.

 

Klock, like Dahmen, is sure Kang's ball never crossed the hazard (and thus he took an illegal drop).

 

"Kang's second shot was very far left and at no point ever came close to being in bounds from the initial point of entry 225 yards or so back," Klock told Golfweek Monday, also saying the ball was six or eight feet deep in the hazard.

 

"Kang was insistent ('95 percent sure' in his own words) his ball came back and entered the hazard at about 35 yards out. I caught bits and pieces of the exchange, but the rules official did quote '95 percent sure is not 100 percent sure' before driving Kang back to look at the line again. Kang then returned and argued some more with Dahmen, to which

 

(Dahmen) replied, 'If you can sleep at night, then take your drop."

 

http://www.golfwrx.c...s-say-what-now/

 

So like i said didnt have the sack to call him that to his face and then proceeded to run and yell it on twitter like a baby. Ive got no skin in this game other than how Dahmen acted after the fact. thats the telling part. he still shook his hand on the 18th and still signed his card and then became a keyboard warrior.

 

Are you sure?

Also, that's a pretty classless attack on a testicular cancer survivor. Nice.