Joel Dahmen accuses Kang of cheating

[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.

 

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

 

If you have to ask youre intellectually dishonest and no longer worth my time. Have a good one

[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.

 

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.

 

Take Molinari's drop on 16 today. Video, and slo-mo replayed on where the ball went in, and a volunteer points to a spot that corresponds well with what the video shows. But his partner just goes on about his business, and even goes ahead and plays while he is taking his drop. It didn't appear to me that he dropped where the video showed the ball went in, but even with the slo mo/video, I couldn't really tell well exactly where the ball went in, but I could imagine how it looked going away from the tee, and how Molinari dropped where he felt the ball crossed and played from there. No drama. No Tweeting required.

[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.

 

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

 

If I remember correctly it was over an incorrect drop.

 

Finally it feels like we’re getting somewhere. Let the dudes duel it out.

 

They can each use conforming 5 irons and have a battle to the death - Hunger Games style. USGA can format and officiate the particulars, of course. To the winner goes the honor of this entire debacle.

[Sean2]

[

 

Finally it feels like we're getting somewhere. Let the dudes duel it out.

 

They can each use conforming 5 irons and have a battle to the death - Hunger Games style. USGA can format and officiate the particulars, of course. To the winner goes the honor of this entire debacle.

 

If the USGA officiates one will show up in Denver and the other in Sheboygan.

[MadGolfer76]

Wasn't this like three tour events ago?

[lowheel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O24mrBRit0

[ClintDagger]

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.

 

Take Molinari's drop on 16 today. Video, and slo-mo replayed on where the ball went in, and a volunteer points to a spot that corresponds well with what the video shows. But his partner just goes on about his business, and even goes ahead and plays while he is taking his drop. It didn't appear to me that he dropped where the video showed the ball went in, but even with the slo mo/video, I couldn't really tell well exactly where the ball went in, but I could imagine how it looked going away from the tee, and how Molinari dropped where he felt the ball crossed and played from there. No drama. No Tweeting required.

So the volunteer pointed out an entry point and Molinari ignored that and used a different entry point?

[Sean2]

Wasn't this like three tour events ago?

 

We are exhibiting a tremendous ability to stay focused.

[DFS PFD]

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.

 

Take Molinari's drop on 16 today. Video, and slo-mo replayed on where the ball went in, and a volunteer points to a spot that corresponds well with what the video shows. But his partner just goes on about his business, and even goes ahead and plays while he is taking his drop. It didn't appear to me that he dropped where the video showed the ball went in, but even with the slo mo/video, I couldn't really tell well exactly where the ball went in, but I could imagine how it looked going away from the tee, and how Molinari dropped where he felt the ball crossed and played from there. No drama. No Tweeting required.

So his playing partners ignorance is good? If everyone's morals were good this wouldn't be an issue, but in this day and age that is definitely not the case.

[RSinSG]

I check this thread every day. It keeps on giving.

[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.

 

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.

 

Take Molinari's drop on 16 today. Video, and slo-mo replayed on where the ball went in, and a volunteer points to a spot that corresponds well with what the video shows. But his partner just goes on about his business, and even goes ahead and plays while he is taking his drop. It didn't appear to me that he dropped where the video showed the ball went in, but even with the slo mo/video, I couldn't really tell well exactly where the ball went in, but I could imagine how it looked going away from the tee, and how Molinari dropped where he felt the ball crossed and played from there. No drama. No Tweeting required.

So the volunteer pointed out an entry point and Molinari ignored that and used a different entry point?

 

Looked that way to me, but my point is to note that I watched the shot coverage, then watched the slo motion camera review then some more coverage where you could see a volunteer pointing to where he saw the ball land in the hazard. But on a par three, with an iron shot, where the ball land may farther up from where it crosses the margin in flight. Even with my own two eyes and slow mo review, I couldn’t really tell exactly where it crossed but Molinari dropped a good ways back from the spot the volunteer pointed to. Maybe 7 to 10 yards. It is also perfectly plausible that Molinari’s vantage point helped him see how the ball may well have crossed the hazard margin well before it landed. That is where even in the case where I had the benefit of slow motion video I’d have to defer to Molinari’s reasonable judgment about where the ball crossed the margin.

 

The point is that Molinari had the vantage point from the tee and even though that vantage point was 160 yards farther away than the volunteer was, Molinari knew how to handle it and so did his playing partner. Not exactly the same circumstances but it just connected a little with me while I was watching it via-a-vis this highly entertaining thread.

[MtlJeff]

I check this thread every day. It keeps on giving.

 

I know exactly where you entered this thread. And by god i will tweet about it.

[Darth Putter]

Dahmen's certainly played well since accusing Kang.

 

Kuchar should try the same thing with Phil in Scotland and see if that gets him out of his slump.

[Nixhex524]

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.

 

I was thinking about this earlier and what we do when we play, even for fun.... Since you play at a higher level but dont have the spotters and eyeballs the PGA tour has, if you're not 100% about where your shot crosses a hazard, do you argue for the better drop or do you drop further back since you aren't 100%? Serious question....

 

My gut tells me that most people drop where they are most sure of, instead of dropping closer where they aren't exactly positive, if that makes any sense.

[Ignatius Reilly]

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.

 

I was thinking about this earlier and what we do when we play, even for fun.... Since you play at a higher level but dont have the spotters and eyeballs the PGA tour has, if you're not 100% about where your shot crosses a hazard, do you argue for the better drop or do you drop further back since you aren't 100%? Serious question....

 

My gut tells me that most people drop where they are most sure of, instead of dropping closer where they aren't exactly positive, if that makes any sense.

 

Other than blatant cheaters and super-optimists, I think that's correct.

 

In this case, I think Kang was most sure it went out where he dropped it.

[ClintDagger]

I’ve played a lot of competitive golf and as far as I can recall have never been in Kang’s shoes where I thought my ball crossed at point X and my playing competitor(s) thought it crossed at point Y and those points were 150 yards apart or whatever that was. I’ve had plenty where the difference was maybe 10 yards or so and many of those were the other guys actually saying I deserved a more beneficial drop than I was going to give myself. In those cases you try your best as a group to come up with a consensus and move on.

 

I suppose if I was Kang, and Dahmen & I were miles apart in our interpretation I would try to find volunteers and see if what they saw supports one side more than the other. If there is no one available to weigh in but me and him then I guess it would come down to how I felt about Dahmen. If I thought he was well meaning I would probably go with the point he was suggesting so as to avoid the appearance of impropriety. If I thought he was just trying to screw me that’s when it gets really complicated.

[jonsnow]

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.

 

It was. Burr dropped Hamilton incorrectly. I think they made a musical about it?

[bscinstnct]

The newspapers back in Hamiltons day made twitter look like The Economist ; )

[MtlJeff]

I don't trust the results of that duel.....The only witnesses were volunteer haberdasher Sir Michael Klock the 1st and Shipping Magnate Baron Robert Yosei. Both of them acquaintances of Alexander Hamilton

[ebrasmus21]

I don't trust the results of that duel.....The only witnesses were volunteer haberdasher Sir Michael Klock the 1st and Shipping Magnate Baron Robert Yosei. Both of them acquaintances of Alexander Hamilton

 

Be that as it may let’s not entirely rule out the use of a duel for this situation.

[Sean2]

I don't trust the results of that duel.....The only witnesses were volunteer haberdasher Sir Michael Klock the 1st and Shipping Magnate Baron Robert Yosei. Both of them acquaintances of Alexander Hamilton

 

Be that as it may let's not entirely rule out the use of a duel for this situation.

 

Instead of pistols, they will each be given a Twitter account.

[jonsnow]

I don't trust the results of that duel.....The only witnesses were volunteer haberdasher Sir Michael Klock the 1st and Shipping Magnate Baron Robert Yosei. Both of them acquaintances of Alexander Hamilton

 

Be that as it may let's not entirely rule out the use of a duel for this situation.

 

Instead of pistols, they will each be given a Twitter account.

 

Less blood with pistols...or swords, for that matter.

[ebrasmus21]

I don't trust the results of that duel.....The only witnesses were volunteer haberdasher Sir Michael Klock the 1st and Shipping Magnate Baron Robert Yosei. Both of them acquaintances of Alexander Hamilton

 

Be that as it may let's not entirely rule out the use of a duel for this situation.

 

Instead of pistols, they will each be given a Twitter account.

 

Less blood with pistols...or swords, for that matter.

 

Invite them both on Morning Drive and let them roast each other?

[RSinSG]

I check this thread every day. It keeps on giving.

 

I know exactly where you entered this thread. And by god i will tweet about it.

 

I am 95% certain you do not know exactly where that was. Scratch that- I’m 100% certain.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

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.

 

I wonder how many times someone has been wrong about where he "felt" the ball crossed and actually dropped 200 yards back by "mistake".

[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.

 

I was thinking about this earlier and what we do when we play, even for fun.... Since you play at a higher level but dont have the spotters and eyeballs the PGA tour has, if you're not 100% about where your shot crosses a hazard, do you argue for the better drop or do you drop further back since you aren't 100%? Serious question....

 

My gut tells me that most people drop where they are most sure of, instead of dropping closer where they aren't exactly positive, if that makes any sense.

 

Youre partially correct but it all depends.When you play doen in florida there is a ton of water holes so Ive seen this personally happen many times. the longest debate off the top off my head was 120 yards apart. it happens and as you know it is often discussed between the group. it never gets heated as were trying to help each other. you can be cautious if youre not sure and take the drop further back but if youre opponent is certain (and yes 95% certain does qualify because you can never be 100% sure from that far out) you let it go and move on. It all depends on the scenario involved but its a fair assumption you make

[Sean2]

I don't trust the results of that duel.....The only witnesses were volunteer haberdasher Sir Michael Klock the 1st and Shipping Magnate Baron Robert Yosei. Both of them acquaintances of Alexander Hamilton

 

Be that as it may let's not entirely rule out the use of a duel for this situation.

 

Instead of pistols, they will each be given a Twitter account.

 

Less blood with pistols...or swords, for that matter.

 

Ha! You got that right. :-)

[johndagolfer]

 

I wonder how many times someone has been wrong about where he "felt" the ball crossed and actually dropped 200 yards back by "mistake".

 

Probably as many times as someone "felt" the ball crossed 200 yards back when it actually crossed 35 yards from the green.

[sekrah]

No decent and honest human being would have done what Kang did. He cheated.

[RobS14526]

No decent and honest human being would have done what Kang did. He cheated.

 

Well that seems like a tempered and well reasoned thought.