Joel Dahmen accuses Kang of cheating

[bscinstnct]

This thread is still going on? Get a life guys damn

 

Real life is too scary. I prefer just eating tacos (tacos!) and internet.

[lowheel]

This thread is still going on? Get a life guys damn

 

Real life is too scary. I prefer just eating tacos (tacos!) and internet.

 

Youre living your best life my man!!! I know you enjoyed today! have a great week

[Longballbogey]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mlb/meaningful-rockies-diamondbacks-game-ends-on-embarrassing-strike-3-call/ar-BBKVkMP?li=BBnb7Kz

[bladehunter]

 

Hypothetical conversation as well as sarcasm , both of which were explained Specificaly in the posts I made , so the reading impaired wouldn't be triggered. Apparently I failed at those explainations. Or. The more likely. You aren't reading the posts.

 

I'm reading.... I just think your arguments are weak. You can feel otherwise.... Arguing a position when you're not actually following the reported stories makes it tougher I can see.

As if anything reported these days has an ounce of credibility. I trust media to tell a story and have no bias much less than I do several members here with inside connections.

 

The Feinsteins of the sports reporting world are only looking for clicks. Hit piece after hit piece. It’s what sells to the twits on Twitter. So no. I prefer to go by what my own eyes see and own ears hear. And my synopsis is that even if Kangs drop was misplaced , that doesn’t make him a cheater. It makes him the recipient of a good break Plenty of bad ones out there to even the score and the field.

[bladehunter]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mlb/meaningful-rockies-diamondbacks-game-ends-on-embarrassing-strike-3-call/ar-BBKVkMP?li=BBnb7Kz

 

I don’t know know man. That wasn’t terrible pitch. Was away taught to swing at anything close with 2 strikes. That was very close. And thigh high. If he turns on it it’s parked to left field. That’s why it got called. It was very hittable.

[ALIF]

Blades vs. cavity backs anyone??

[Nixhex524]

 

Nothing you wrote refutes anything I said. Your speculating isn't any more powerful than mine. You're 6 beers deep and never backing down. You're whole argument is "dahmen and his friends say" there's no turning back for you. No Marshall is on the record only dahmens friends regardless of how many times you repeat this false narrative.. Secondly Kang didn't throw a fit. They waited for a rules official because dahmen disagreed with where Kang wanted to drop. Kang drove back made his case and rules official agreed. Period. Dahmen lost his cool not kang. Pros don't do that. You made your case you were overruled, you move on. Those witnesses don't have any credibility because A they are not consulted for ruling purposes and are dahmens friends and b it's up to the players and rules official. Just because you get emotional doesn't make you more right, it actually denigrates your case because it's showing unprofessionalism. He's no super hero for acting like that. Youre happy King shot 7 over today at the open? Great, how big and edgy of you. I guess the golf gods forgot he was playing the first 3 days when he was even... something personal happened between those 2 wether you like it or not otherwise dahmen doesn't act the fool after the round or refuses to speak to Kang. You disagree of course so go back to touting these "magical witnesses" and what did dahmen have to gain while ignoring that kang had not much to gain either as he was scheduled to play the john Deere so it wasn't "his last chance to get into the open" and besides it turns out if he finished 1 or 2 shots worse he's still in the open... what mental gymnastics will be required now?

 

FYI. People standing 50 yards outside the ropes are not experts. They help finding balls in long rough but that's about it. Your scenario never happens on any tour. So no I wouldn't take my playing competitors friends words as gospel. If I know my ball crossed a certain area I'm certainly not turning to people in a gallery for advice. The rules are clear on this. Maybe read up on them. Not being sarcastic at all by the way. I believe you don't know the rules around these types of events. Apparently neither does dahmen. At this point you're not having a discussion in good faith, you're merely attempting to lecture anybody who disagrees with your assessment. That's okay by the way. I've been saying for weeks now there is a possibility both guys are right and both are wrong with the truth somewhere in the middle. You're convinced eagle eye dahmen from 30 yards to the right of kang can't possibly be wrong in what he saw. Knows exactly where it crossed and his word cannot be questioned because his buddies agree... I choose to be more diplomatic. To each their own I guess

 

You have posted a lot of stuff that YOU believe and either is completely false or didn't happen in the situation at hand. I have asked you to elaborate and you can't because you don't actually have anything to back up the claims you make, for discussions sake. For instance, "5 of Dahmens friends..." is just not true. You can say it all you want, but that is not the truth, so justify it to yourself how you should discredit these people immediately but again, it's just not the truth. I will give you maybe one of them is a friend of his, but the rest? It's just false. The bias, the culture, the agenda... it's all crap made up in your head.... all I am doing is reiterating what the reports say and asking you to tell me why you say the things you are saying that are coming out of nowhere.... You can disagree with me all you want, that's totally fine.. I live with someone who disagrees with me all the time, LOL.... at least she backs up what she says with facts though.. I have always enjoyed your posts, I just feel like you could do better here....

[Nixhex524]

Hypothetical conversation as well as sarcasm , both of which were explained Specificaly in the posts I made , so the reading impaired wouldn't be triggered. Apparently I failed at those explainations. Or. The more likely. You aren't reading the posts.

 

I'm reading.... I just think your arguments are weak. You can feel otherwise.... Arguing a position when you're not actually following the reported stories makes it tougher I can see.

As if anything reported these days has an ounce of credibility. I trust media to tell a story and have no bias much less than I do several members here with inside connections.

 

The Feinsteins of the sports reporting world are only looking for clicks. Hit piece after hit piece. It's what sells to the twits on Twitter. So no. I prefer to go by what my own eyes see and own ears hear. And my synopsis is that even if Kangs drop was misplaced , that doesn't make him a cheater. It makes him the recipient of a good break Plenty of bad ones out there to even the score and the field.

 

 

Cool. So no matter what is reported, you won't believe it. Got it. When you saw the shot on TV, with your own eyes, how much curve did you think it had?

[ALIF]

 

Nothing you wrote refutes anything I said. Your speculating isn't any more powerful than mine. You're 6 beers deep and never backing down. You're whole argument is "dahmen and his friends say" there's no turning back for you. No Marshall is on the record only dahmens friends regardless of how many times you repeat this false narrative.. Secondly Kang didn't throw a fit. They waited for a rules official because dahmen disagreed with where Kang wanted to drop. Kang drove back made his case and rules official agreed. Period. Dahmen lost his cool not kang. Pros don't do that. You made your case you were overruled, you move on. Those witnesses don't have any credibility because A they are not consulted for ruling purposes and are dahmens friends and b it's up to the players and rules official. Just because you get emotional doesn't make you more right, it actually denigrates your case because it's showing unprofessionalism. He's no super hero for acting like that. Youre happy King shot 7 over today at the open? Great, how big and edgy of you. I guess the golf gods forgot he was playing the first 3 days when he was even... something personal happened between those 2 wether you like it or not otherwise dahmen doesn't act the fool after the round or refuses to speak to Kang. You disagree of course so go back to touting these "magical witnesses" and what did dahmen have to gain while ignoring that kang had not much to gain either as he was scheduled to play the john Deere so it wasn't "his last chance to get into the open" and besides it turns out if he finished 1 or 2 shots worse he's still in the open... what mental gymnastics will be required now?

 

FYI. People standing 50 yards outside the ropes are not experts. They help finding balls in long rough but that's about it. Your scenario never happens on any tour. So no I wouldn't take my playing competitors friends words as gospel. If I know my ball crossed a certain area I'm certainly not turning to people in a gallery for advice. The rules are clear on this. Maybe read up on them. Not being sarcastic at all by the way. I believe you don't know the rules around these types of events. Apparently neither does dahmen. At this point you're not having a discussion in good faith, you're merely attempting to lecture anybody who disagrees with your assessment. That's okay by the way. I've been saying for weeks now there is a possibility both guys are right and both are wrong with the truth somewhere in the middle. You're convinced eagle eye dahmen from 30 yards to the right of kang can't possibly be wrong in what he saw. Knows exactly where it crossed and his word cannot be questioned because his buddies agree... I choose to be more diplomatic. To each their own I guess

 

You have posted a lot of stuff that YOU believe and either is completely false or didn't happen in the situation at hand. I have asked you to elaborate and you can't because you don't actually have anything to back up the claims you make, for discussions sake. For instance, "5 of Dahmens friends..." is just not true. You can say it all you want, but that is not the truth, so justify it to yourself how you should discredit these people immediately but again, it's just not the truth. I will give you maybe one of them is a friend of his, but the rest? It's just false. The bias, the culture, the agenda... it's all crap made up in your head.... all I am doing is reiterating what the reports say and asking you to tell me why you say the things you are saying that are coming out of nowhere.... You can disagree with me all you want, that's totally fine.. I live with someone who disagrees with me all the time, LOL.... at least she backs up what she says with facts though.. I have always enjoyed your posts, I just feel like you could do better here....

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This!!!!!

[lowheel]

Nothing you wrote refutes anything I said. Your speculating isn't any more powerful than mine. You're 6 beers deep and never backing down. You're whole argument is "dahmen and his friends say" there's no turning back for you. No Marshall is on the record only dahmens friends regardless of how many times you repeat this false narrative.. Secondly Kang didn't throw a fit. They waited for a rules official because dahmen disagreed with where Kang wanted to drop. Kang drove back made his case and rules official agreed. Period. Dahmen lost his cool not kang. Pros don't do that. You made your case you were overruled, you move on. Those witnesses don't have any credibility because A they are not consulted for ruling purposes and are dahmens friends and b it's up to the players and rules official. Just because you get emotional doesn't make you more right, it actually denigrates your case because it's showing unprofessionalism. He's no super hero for acting like that. Youre happy King shot 7 over today at the open? Great, how big and edgy of you. I guess the golf gods forgot he was playing the first 3 days when he was even... something personal happened between those 2 wether you like it or not otherwise dahmen doesn't act the fool after the round or refuses to speak to Kang. You disagree of course so go back to touting these "magical witnesses" and what did dahmen have to gain while ignoring that kang had not much to gain either as he was scheduled to play the john Deere so it wasn't "his last chance to get into the open" and besides it turns out if he finished 1 or 2 shots worse he's still in the open... what mental gymnastics will be required now?

 

FYI. People standing 50 yards outside the ropes are not experts. They help finding balls in long rough but that's about it. Your scenario never happens on any tour. So no I wouldn't take my playing competitors friends words as gospel. If I know my ball crossed a certain area I'm certainly not turning to people in a gallery for advice. The rules are clear on this. Maybe read up on them. Not being sarcastic at all by the way. I believe you don't know the rules around these types of events. Apparently neither does dahmen. At this point you're not having a discussion in good faith, you're merely attempting to lecture anybody who disagrees with your assessment. That's okay by the way. I've been saying for weeks now there is a possibility both guys are right and both are wrong with the truth somewhere in the middle. You're convinced eagle eye dahmen from 30 yards to the right of kang can't possibly be wrong in what he saw. Knows exactly where it crossed and his word cannot be questioned because his buddies agree... I choose to be more diplomatic. To each their own I guess

 

You have posted a lot of stuff that YOU believe and either is completely false or didn't happen in the situation at hand. I have asked you to elaborate and you can't because you don't actually have anything to back up the claims you make, for discussions sake. For instance, "5 of Dahmens friends..." is just not true. You can say it all you want, but that is not the truth, so justify it to yourself how you should discredit these people immediately but again, it's just not the truth. I will give you maybe one of them is a friend of his, but the rest? It's just false. The bias, the culture, the agenda... it's all crap made up in your head.... all I am doing is reiterating what the reports say and asking you to tell me why you say the things you are saying that are coming out of nowhere.... You can disagree with me all you want, that's totally fine.. I live with someone who disagrees with me all the time, LOL.... at least she backs up what she says with facts though.. I have always enjoyed your posts, I just feel like you could do better here....

 

Your projection is noteworthy... I cant believe my opinions have you twisted in such knots.I can turn everything you just said onto your own comments. you cant back anything you say because youve cornered yourself into believing one over the other simply because. I never said 5 guys were dahmens friends. report are hearsay just like what youre posting and what im posting. the facts are that the 2 people with quotes on the record ARE dahmens close friends.If you cant accept that then move along. they couldnt serve on a jury if he caught a case they cant be trusted to be unbiased sources here. period. Guys actions during and after the fact speaks volume to me on his true character and intentions. You disagree? great but stop pretending youre standing on this moral highground. he made an accusation and slandered a fellow pro with no evidence. his word means nothing to me and everything to you. you have repeated now 50 times the same tired argument and simply cant grasp that the rules are on Kangs side and the tour is on kangs side. Dahmen pled his case and lost. just because he threw a tantrum afterwards doesnt validate anything. i asked you several times and you ducked the question which says alot about your false sense of superiority by the way. does dahmen act like this with tiger when i have proven to you that tiger took a bad drop on the biggest stage on video no less??? ill answer for you, he doesnt. he went after a non native english speaker and used his friends as cover to excuse his bush league move after the round. Dahmen is so virtuous that he refused to speak to Kang like you love to say " according to reports".

Youre dug in pal and cant fathom that a misunderstanding might have occured.Thats sad. I have methodically answered all your "questions" yet you never answer mine so lets not waste each others time because youre being intellectually dishonest here. you dont want a discussion you want to lecture and make people conform to your opinion of what happened based on hearsay. Hate to break it to you, lots of people dont feel like you do and you should just accept it.I accept your opinion i expect the same. have a great night

[lowheel]

Hypothetical conversation as well as sarcasm , both of which were explained Specificaly in the posts I made , so the reading impaired wouldn't be triggered. Apparently I failed at those explainations. Or. The more likely. You aren't reading the posts.

 

I'm reading.... I just think your arguments are weak. You can feel otherwise.... Arguing a position when you're not actually following the reported stories makes it tougher I can see.

As if anything reported these days has an ounce of credibility. I trust media to tell a story and have no bias much less than I do several members here with inside connections.

 

The Feinsteins of the sports reporting world are only looking for clicks. Hit piece after hit piece. It's what sells to the twits on Twitter. So no. I prefer to go by what my own eyes see and own ears hear. And my synopsis is that even if Kangs drop was misplaced , that doesn't make him a cheater. It makes him the recipient of a good break Plenty of bad ones out there to even the score and the field.

 

 

Cool. So no matter what is reported, you won't believe it. Got it. When you saw the shot on TV, with your own eyes, how much curve did you think it had?

 

How much curve did tigers shot have at the players? it was 30 feet into the lake. and he took a drop parallel to that. you saw it with your own eyes right? Go ahead call him a cheater... We live in a clickbait era guy, media doesnt have alot of credibility.They craft narratives to feed the clapping seals and sow their own bias which they always claim they dont have. Media came out in full force to defend tiger for that instance. chamblee said tiger cheated at the masters that same year which is equally disgusting to Dahmens comment.

[lowheel]

Hypothetical conversation as well as sarcasm , both of which were explained Specificaly in the posts I made , so the reading impaired wouldn't be triggered. Apparently I failed at those explainations. Or. The more likely. You aren't reading the posts.

 

I'm reading.... I just think your arguments are weak. You can feel otherwise.... Arguing a position when you're not actually following the reported stories makes it tougher I can see.

As if anything reported these days has an ounce of credibility. I trust media to tell a story and have no bias much less than I do several members here with inside connections.

 

The Feinsteins of the sports reporting world are only looking for clicks. Hit piece after hit piece. It's what sells to the twits on Twitter. So no. I prefer to go by what my own eyes see and own ears hear. And my synopsis is that even if Kangs drop was misplaced , that doesn't make him a cheater. It makes him the recipient of a good break Plenty of bad ones out there to even the score and the field.

 

Well said. some people are not capable of independent thought and find comfort in group think. " that guy said it so it must be true" is the laziest form of discourse

[Longballbogey]

https://www.msn.com/...VkMP?li=BBnb7Kz

 

I don't know know man. That wasn't terrible pitch. Was away taught to swing at anything close with 2 strikes. That was very close. And thigh high. If he turns on it it's parked to left field. That's why it got called. It was very hittable.

 

 

Point is the difference of opinion of what they saw.

[bladehunter]

Hypothetical conversation as well as sarcasm , both of which were explained Specificaly in the posts I made , so the reading impaired wouldn't be triggered. Apparently I failed at those explainations. Or. The more likely. You aren't reading the posts.

 

I'm reading.... I just think your arguments are weak. You can feel otherwise.... Arguing a position when you're not actually following the reported stories makes it tougher I can see.

As if anything reported these days has an ounce of credibility. I trust media to tell a story and have no bias much less than I do several members here with inside connections.

 

The Feinsteins of the sports reporting world are only looking for clicks. Hit piece after hit piece. It's what sells to the twits on Twitter. So no. I prefer to go by what my own eyes see and own ears hear. And my synopsis is that even if Kangs drop was misplaced , that doesn't make him a cheater. It makes him the recipient of a good break Plenty of bad ones out there to even the score and the field.

 

 

Cool. So no matter what is reported, you won't believe it. Got it. When you saw the shot on TV, with your own eyes, how much curve did you think it had?

 

The only angle I saw was from close to what Joel saw. Absolutely no way to tell. And it wasn’t the whole flight either.and it wast the whole flight either.

[ALIF]

 

Nothing you wrote refutes anything I said. Your speculating isn't any more powerful than mine. You're 6 beers deep and never backing down. You're whole argument is "dahmen and his friends say" there's no turning back for you. No Marshall is on the record only dahmens friends regardless of how many times you repeat this false narrative.. Secondly Kang didn't throw a fit. They waited for a rules official because dahmen disagreed with where Kang wanted to drop. Kang drove back made his case and rules official agreed. Period. Dahmen lost his cool not kang. Pros don't do that. You made your case you were overruled, you move on. Those witnesses don't have any credibility because A they are not consulted for ruling purposes and are dahmens friends and b it's up to the players and rules official. Just because you get emotional doesn't make you more right, it actually denigrates your case because it's showing unprofessionalism. He's no super hero for acting like that. Youre happy King shot 7 over today at the open? Great, how big and edgy of you. I guess the golf gods forgot he was playing the first 3 days when he was even... something personal happened between those 2 wether you like it or not otherwise dahmen doesn't act the fool after the round or refuses to speak to Kang. You disagree of course so go back to touting these "magical witnesses" and what did dahmen have to gain while ignoring that kang had not much to gain either as he was scheduled to play the john Deere so it wasn't "his last chance to get into the open" and besides it turns out if he finished 1 or 2 shots worse he's still in the open... what mental gymnastics will be required now?

 

FYI. People standing 50 yards outside the ropes are not experts. They help finding balls in long rough but that's about it. Your scenario never happens on any tour. So no I wouldn't take my playing competitors friends words as gospel. If I know my ball crossed a certain area I'm certainly not turning to people in a gallery for advice. The rules are clear on this. Maybe read up on them. Not being sarcastic at all by the way. I believe you don't know the rules around these types of events. Apparently neither does dahmen. At this point you're not having a discussion in good faith, you're merely attempting to lecture anybody who disagrees with your assessment. That's okay by the way. I've been saying for weeks now there is a possibility both guys are right and both are wrong with the truth somewhere in the middle. You're convinced eagle eye dahmen from 30 yards to the right of kang can't possibly be wrong in what he saw. Knows exactly where it crossed and his word cannot be questioned because his buddies agree... I choose to be more diplomatic. To each their own I guess

 

You have posted a lot of stuff that YOU believe and either is completely false or didn't happen in the situation at hand. I have asked you to elaborate and you can't because you don't actually have anything to back up the claims you make, for discussions sake. For instance, "5 of Dahmens friends..." is just not true. You can say it all you want, but that is not the truth, so justify it to yourself how you should discredit these people immediately but again, it's just not the truth. I will give you maybe one of them is a friend of his, but the rest? It's just false. The bias, the culture, the agenda... it's all crap made up in your head.... all I am doing is reiterating what the reports say and asking you to tell me why you say the things you are saying that are coming out of nowhere.... You can disagree with me all you want, that's totally fine.. I live with someone who disagrees with me all the time, LOL.... at least she backs up what she says with facts though.. I have always enjoyed your posts, I just feel like you could do better here....

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This!!!!!

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This!!!!(again)

[ClintDagger]

I totally understand people wanting to give Kang the benefit of the doubt. I even get the eye rolling of someone ranting on Twitter about a ruling they didn’t like. I’m at a total loss though when people say Dahmen wasn’t firm & confrontational in the moment. He clearly was.

 

As far as the drop goes, I think it’s hard to look at the information as we know it and not conclude there’s a high probability that Kang took a bad drop, and I mean a really bad drop. Can we say that with 100% certainty? No and I guess whatever you think that probability is, be it 40%, 80% or whatever that will probably drive your opinion on this matter. Did Kang knowingly take a bad drop? Impossible to say but with so many people arguing against the drop he took and his playing competitor vehemently and hotly disagreeing with it I don’t see how one can conclude anything other than Kang probably at least suspected he was taking a bad drop but either blatantly cheated or gave himself the benefit of the doubt. That still leaves room that his drop was appropriate but YMMV on how much room there is and if he acted appropriately given the circumstances.

[Nixhex524]

Nothing you wrote refutes anything I said. Your speculating isn't any more powerful than mine. You're 6 beers deep and never backing down. You're whole argument is "dahmen and his friends say" there's no turning back for you. No Marshall is on the record only dahmens friends regardless of how many times you repeat this false narrative.. Secondly Kang didn't throw a fit. They waited for a rules official because dahmen disagreed with where Kang wanted to drop. Kang drove back made his case and rules official agreed. Period. Dahmen lost his cool not kang. Pros don't do that. You made your case you were overruled, you move on. Those witnesses don't have any credibility because A they are not consulted for ruling purposes and are dahmens friends and b it's up to the players and rules official. Just because you get emotional doesn't make you more right, it actually denigrates your case because it's showing unprofessionalism. He's no super hero for acting like that. Youre happy King shot 7 over today at the open? Great, how big and edgy of you. I guess the golf gods forgot he was playing the first 3 days when he was even... something personal happened between those 2 wether you like it or not otherwise dahmen doesn't act the fool after the round or refuses to speak to Kang. You disagree of course so go back to touting these "magical witnesses" and what did dahmen have to gain while ignoring that kang had not much to gain either as he was scheduled to play the john Deere so it wasn't "his last chance to get into the open" and besides it turns out if he finished 1 or 2 shots worse he's still in the open... what mental gymnastics will be required now?

 

FYI. People standing 50 yards outside the ropes are not experts. They help finding balls in long rough but that's about it. Your scenario never happens on any tour. So no I wouldn't take my playing competitors friends words as gospel. If I know my ball crossed a certain area I'm certainly not turning to people in a gallery for advice. The rules are clear on this. Maybe read up on them. Not being sarcastic at all by the way. I believe you don't know the rules around these types of events. Apparently neither does dahmen. At this point you're not having a discussion in good faith, you're merely attempting to lecture anybody who disagrees with your assessment. That's okay by the way. I've been saying for weeks now there is a possibility both guys are right and both are wrong with the truth somewhere in the middle. You're convinced eagle eye dahmen from 30 yards to the right of kang can't possibly be wrong in what he saw. Knows exactly where it crossed and his word cannot be questioned because his buddies agree... I choose to be more diplomatic. To each their own I guess

 

You have posted a lot of stuff that YOU believe and either is completely false or didn't happen in the situation at hand. I have asked you to elaborate and you can't because you don't actually have anything to back up the claims you make, for discussions sake. For instance, "5 of Dahmens friends..." is just not true. You can say it all you want, but that is not the truth, so justify it to yourself how you should discredit these people immediately but again, it's just not the truth. I will give you maybe one of them is a friend of his, but the rest? It's just false. The bias, the culture, the agenda... it's all crap made up in your head.... all I am doing is reiterating what the reports say and asking you to tell me why you say the things you are saying that are coming out of nowhere.... You can disagree with me all you want, that's totally fine.. I live with someone who disagrees with me all the time, LOL.... at least she backs up what she says with facts though.. I have always enjoyed your posts, I just feel like you could do better here....

 

Your projection is noteworthy... I cant believe my opinions have you twisted in such knots.I can turn everything you just said onto your own comments. you cant back anything you say because youve cornered yourself into believing one over the other simply because. I never said 5 guys were dahmens friends. report are hearsay just like what youre posting and what im posting. the facts are that the 2 people with quotes on the record ARE dahmens close friends.If you cant accept that then move along. they couldnt serve on a jury if he caught a case they cant be trusted to be unbiased sources here. period. Guys actions during and after the fact speaks volume to me on his true character and intentions. You disagree? great but stop pretending youre standing on this moral highground. he made an accusation and slandered a fellow pro with no evidence. his word means nothing to me and everything to you. you have repeated now 50 times the same tired argument and simply cant grasp that the rules are on Kangs side and the tour is on kangs side. Dahmen pled his case and lost. just because he threw a tantrum afterwards doesnt validate anything. i asked you several times and you ducked the question which says alot about your false sense of superiority by the way. does dahmen act like this with tiger when i have proven to you that tiger took a bad drop on the biggest stage on video no less??? ill answer for you, he doesnt. he went after a non native english speaker and used his friends as cover to excuse his bush league move after the round. Dahmen is so virtuous that he refused to speak to Kang like you love to say " according to reports".

Youre dug in pal and cant fathom that a misunderstanding might have occured.Thats sad. I have methodically answered all your "questions" yet you never answer mine so lets not waste each others time because youre being intellectually dishonest here. you dont want a discussion you want to lecture and make people conform to your opinion of what happened based on hearsay. Hate to break it to you, lots of people dont feel like you do and you should just accept it.I accept your opinion i expect the same. have a great night

 

I believe one over the other "simply because". Again, just not true and I have spoken to this over and over as to why I believe one over the other. There's actual eye witnesses to the topic at hand. You'll try and discredit them somehow, but it doesn't mean they didn't see it. You really do believe what you say no matter how little evidence there is to back it up.... crazy.

 

Since you can't move on to anything accurate until I "answer your question" I will go ahead and answer it. Ready..............

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know if he would have done this to Tiger because it is a stupid hypothetical that is only a judgement call YOU and I would make right now. As smart as you think you are, you have absolutely NO way of knowing what Dahmen does in that situation because he wasn't there... And this is the stuff I'm talking about.

 

Don't know if it's my turn or not, but at any point do you want to answer the question I asked? Please elaborate on this bias, agenda, or cultural implications since you believe in them. Are you passive aggressively saying Dahmen is a racist? That's what it sounds like, but I realize I could be wrong.

 

You keep saying "Dahmens friends".... it was ONE guy. There were at least 3 others to back what Dahmen claimed. Again, you want to ignore that fact, well there's nothing I can do about it. You're going to believe what YOU think rather than what eye witnesses are saying, then you're going to defend that with court instances where eyewitnesses have changed their stories, only to justify only what YOU THINK HAPPENED. Rock on with your bad self, bro. I'm arguing to the points of what others have said, you are choosing to let your brain run wild and that is somehow more credible than anything anyone else says. Its actually funny at this point!!

[Nixhex524]

I totally understand people wanting to give Kang the benefit of the doubt. I even get the eye rolling of someone ranting on Twitter about a ruling they didn't like. I'm at a total loss though when people say Dahmen wasn't firm & confrontational in the moment. He clearly was.

 

As far as the drop goes, I think it's hard to look at the information as we know it and not conclude there's a high probability that Kang took a bad drop, and I mean a really bad drop. Can we say that with 100% certainty? No and I guess whatever you think that probability is, be it 40%, 80% or whatever that will probably drive your opinion on this matter. Did Kang knowingly take a bad drop? Impossible to say but with so many people arguing against the drop he took and his playing competitor vehemently and hotly disagreeing with it I don't see how one can conclude anything other than Kang probably at least suspected he was taking a bad drop but either blatantly cheated or gave himself the benefit of the doubt. That still leaves room that his drop was appropriate but YMMV on how much room there is and if he acted appropriately given the circumstances.

 

Great post. Well said.

[bladehunter]

I totally understand people wanting to give Kang the benefit of the doubt. I even get the eye rolling of someone ranting on Twitter about a ruling they didn't like. I'm at a total loss though when people say Dahmen wasn't firm & confrontational in the moment. He clearly was.

 

As far as the drop goes, I think it's hard to look at the information as we know it and not conclude there's a high probability that Kang took a bad drop, and I mean a really bad drop. Can we say that with 100% certainty? No and I guess whatever you think that probability is, be it 40%, 80% or whatever that will probably drive your opinion on this matter. Did Kang knowingly take a bad drop? Impossible to say but with so many people arguing against the drop he took and his playing competitor vehemently and hotly disagreeing with it I don't see how one can conclude anything other than Kang probably at least suspected he was taking a bad drop but either blatantly cheated or gave himself the benefit of the doubt. That still leaves room that his drop was appropriate but YMMV on how much room there is and if he acted appropriately given the circumstances.

 

Great post. Well said.

 

I also think that was a great post and well said. So hilarious to me that we disagree on the cheating allegation after both loving that post.

 

My beliefs are . If there is an ounce of doubt , we don’t cal folks cheaters. Same as we don’t convict for murder etc ( in theory ). There are more than 1 ounce of doubt here.

[johndagolfer]

I totally understand people wanting to give Kang the benefit of the doubt. I even get the eye rolling of someone ranting on Twitter about a ruling they didn't like. I'm at a total loss though when people say Dahmen wasn't firm & confrontational in the moment. He clearly was.

 

As far as the drop goes, I think it's hard to look at the information as we know it and not conclude there's a high probability that Kang took a bad drop, and I mean a really bad drop. Can we say that with 100% certainty? No and I guess whatever you think that probability is, be it 40%, 80% or whatever that will probably drive your opinion on this matter. Did Kang knowingly take a bad drop? Impossible to say but with so many people arguing against the drop he took and his playing competitor vehemently and hotly disagreeing with it I don't see how one can conclude anything other than Kang probably at least suspected he was taking a bad drop but either blatantly cheated or gave himself the benefit of the doubt. That still leaves room that his drop was appropriate but YMMV on how much room there is and if he acted appropriately given the circumstances.

 

Great post. Well said.

 

I also think that was a great post and well said. So hilarious to me that we disagree on the cheating allegation after both loving that post.

 

My beliefs are . If there is an ounce of doubt , we don't cal folks cheaters. Same as we don't convict for murder etc ( in theory ). There are more than 1 ounce of doubt here.

 

I have definitely been on the side of giving Kang the benefit of the doubt. But I am not sure I would agree on the post you both claim to love so much. What is this information that would cause one to conclude there is a high probability of a bad drop? From what I have read, the only "information" out there is the eye witness statement of JD, his caddy and the shot link guy. While there have been anonymous posts supporting Kang, to me none of this is evidence that would cause me to change my opinion one way or the other. Is there new information that has come out recently?

 

I do agree that JD wasn't passive in his assertion on the course. If someone is going to hold up a round by 30 minutes he must believe what he saw. That being said I think JD calling Kang a cheater on twitter is just a symptom of how social norms have degraded in the age of social media. Tact in the current environment is a thing of the past and sadly doesn't look like it will be changing any time soon.

[Nixhex524]

I totally understand people wanting to give Kang the benefit of the doubt. I even get the eye rolling of someone ranting on Twitter about a ruling they didn't like. I'm at a total loss though when people say Dahmen wasn't firm & confrontational in the moment. He clearly was.

 

As far as the drop goes, I think it's hard to look at the information as we know it and not conclude there's a high probability that Kang took a bad drop, and I mean a really bad drop. Can we say that with 100% certainty? No and I guess whatever you think that probability is, be it 40%, 80% or whatever that will probably drive your opinion on this matter. Did Kang knowingly take a bad drop? Impossible to say but with so many people arguing against the drop he took and his playing competitor vehemently and hotly disagreeing with it I don't see how one can conclude anything other than Kang probably at least suspected he was taking a bad drop but either blatantly cheated or gave himself the benefit of the doubt. That still leaves room that his drop was appropriate but YMMV on how much room there is and if he acted appropriately given the circumstances.

 

Great post. Well said.

 

I also think that was a great post and well said. So hilarious to me that we disagree on the cheating allegation after both loving that post.

 

My beliefs are . If there is an ounce of doubt , we don't cal folks cheaters. Same as we don't convict for murder etc ( in theory ). There are more than 1 ounce of doubt here.

 

I don't even disagree with this either.... I just think the difference lies, in a court room and judge and jury are present throughout the case/trial. They are given all the facts/non facts and left to decide. In this case, there was no judge/RO present that witnessed any of it so it was left up to Kang even after Dahmen and others claimed they saw it differently. Is Kang a "cheater"? I don't know if that's 100% accurate, but if Kang knows he got a better drop than he deserved because of his POV, then in my mind, yes, he is. By knowingly deceiving a RO for a better drop is BS.... It SEEMS that way to me based on witness accounts, but I have no way of definitively proving it.

[ClintDagger]

I totally understand people wanting to give Kang the benefit of the doubt. I even get the eye rolling of someone ranting on Twitter about a ruling they didn't like. I'm at a total loss though when people say Dahmen wasn't firm & confrontational in the moment. He clearly was.

 

As far as the drop goes, I think it's hard to look at the information as we know it and not conclude there's a high probability that Kang took a bad drop, and I mean a really bad drop. Can we say that with 100% certainty? No and I guess whatever you think that probability is, be it 40%, 80% or whatever that will probably drive your opinion on this matter. Did Kang knowingly take a bad drop? Impossible to say but with so many people arguing against the drop he took and his playing competitor vehemently and hotly disagreeing with it I don't see how one can conclude anything other than Kang probably at least suspected he was taking a bad drop but either blatantly cheated or gave himself the benefit of the doubt. That still leaves room that his drop was appropriate but YMMV on how much room there is and if he acted appropriately given the circumstances.

 

Great post. Well said.

 

I also think that was a great post and well said. So hilarious to me that we disagree on the cheating allegation after both loving that post.

 

My beliefs are . If there is an ounce of doubt , we don’t cal folks cheaters. Same as we don’t convict for murder etc ( in theory ). There are more than 1 ounce of doubt here.

I think when it comes to Dahmen blatantly calling Kang a cheater, we would have to have been in his shoes in that moment to know how called for or uncalled for that was. If you’ve played competitive golf at any level, and I’m talking juniors, to HS, to college, to professional, you’ve encountered cheaters. I’m talking guys that miraculously find their ball when you know it wasn’t findable. Guys that try to shave strokes. Guys that take bad drops. Guys that definitively declare their ball went into a hazard to avoid a lost ball penalty when you know that can’t be determined from the vantage point at which they originally hit.

 

My point is, and I bet we’ve all been there, sometimes you know when a guy is cheating and isn’t just “mistaken”. I’m not saying that this was the case with Kang because we weren’t in Kang’s shoes and we weren’t in Dahmen’s either. But as much as Kang May deserve the benefit of the doubt from people like us on the outside looking in, I also reserve that benefit of the doubt for Dahmen because I’ve been in plenty of situations where I knew a guy was a cheater even though I didn’t catch him red handed.

[lchang]

I think:

 

1) Kang would have been better off (broadly defined--in general, in the long term) by taking the conservative drop.

and

2) Given that he didn't, Dahmen would have been better off saying, "As I argued strongly at the time, I have serious doubts about the validity of that drop--but in the end, it's his call and his conscience" rather than "he cheated." That first sentence fits well within Twitter's limits, right? And I *think* lowheel's bitterness at Dahmen goes away if he words it that way? And this thread would have died long ago?!

 

In my mind, I've "condemned" Kang for not doing (1) more than Dahmen for not doing (2).

[MilkyButterCuts]

The entire situation is completely irrelevant at this point.

[bladehunter]

I totally understand people wanting to give Kang the benefit of the doubt. I even get the eye rolling of someone ranting on Twitter about a ruling they didn't like. I'm at a total loss though when people say Dahmen wasn't firm & confrontational in the moment. He clearly was.

 

As far as the drop goes, I think it's hard to look at the information as we know it and not conclude there's a high probability that Kang took a bad drop, and I mean a really bad drop. Can we say that with 100% certainty? No and I guess whatever you think that probability is, be it 40%, 80% or whatever that will probably drive your opinion on this matter. Did Kang knowingly take a bad drop? Impossible to say but with so many people arguing against the drop he took and his playing competitor vehemently and hotly disagreeing with it I don't see how one can conclude anything other than Kang probably at least suspected he was taking a bad drop but either blatantly cheated or gave himself the benefit of the doubt. That still leaves room that his drop was appropriate but YMMV on how much room there is and if he acted appropriately given the circumstances.

 

Great post. Well said.

 

I also think that was a great post and well said. So hilarious to me that we disagree on the cheating allegation after both loving that post.

 

My beliefs are . If there is an ounce of doubt , we don't cal folks cheaters. Same as we don't convict for murder etc ( in theory ). There are more than 1 ounce of doubt here.

 

I don't even disagree with this either.... I just think the difference lies, in a court room and judge and jury are present throughout the case/trial. They are given all the facts/non facts and left to decide. In this case, there was no judge/RO present that witnessed any of it so it was left up to Kang even after Dahmen and others claimed they saw it differently. Is Kang a "cheater"? I don't know if that's 100% accurate, but if Kang knows he got a better drop than he deserved because of his POV, then in my mind, yes, he is. By knowingly deceiving a RO for a better drop is BS.... It SEEMS that way to me based on witness accounts, but I have no way of definitively proving it.

 

Yes. But knowing you have a better drop after and knowing it at the time are two different things entirely. Knowing it after just means you were wrong. Not a cheater.

[bladehunter]

I totally understand people wanting to give Kang the benefit of the doubt. I even get the eye rolling of someone ranting on Twitter about a ruling they didn't like. I'm at a total loss though when people say Dahmen wasn't firm & confrontational in the moment. He clearly was.

 

As far as the drop goes, I think it's hard to look at the information as we know it and not conclude there's a high probability that Kang took a bad drop, and I mean a really bad drop. Can we say that with 100% certainty? No and I guess whatever you think that probability is, be it 40%, 80% or whatever that will probably drive your opinion on this matter. Did Kang knowingly take a bad drop? Impossible to say but with so many people arguing against the drop he took and his playing competitor vehemently and hotly disagreeing with it I don't see how one can conclude anything other than Kang probably at least suspected he was taking a bad drop but either blatantly cheated or gave himself the benefit of the doubt. That still leaves room that his drop was appropriate but YMMV on how much room there is and if he acted appropriately given the circumstances.

 

Great post. Well said.

 

I also think that was a great post and well said. So hilarious to me that we disagree on the cheating allegation after both loving that post.

 

My beliefs are . If there is an ounce of doubt , we don’t cal folks cheaters. Same as we don’t convict for murder etc ( in theory ). There are more than 1 ounce of doubt here.

I think when it comes to Dahmen blatantly calling Kang a cheater, we would have to have been in his shoes in that moment to know how called for or uncalled for that was. If you’ve played competitive golf at any level, and I’m talking juniors, to HS, to college, to professional, you’ve encountered cheaters. I’m talking guys that miraculously find their ball when you know it wasn’t findable. Guys that try to shave strokes. Guys that take bad drops. Guys that definitively declare their ball went into a hazard to avoid a lost ball penalty when you know that can’t be determined from the vantage point at which they originally hit.

 

My point is, and I bet we’ve all been there, sometimes you know when a guy is cheating and isn’t just “mistaken”. I’m not saying that this was the case with Kang because we weren’t in Kang’s shoes and we weren’t in Dahmen’s either. But as much as Kang May deserve the benefit of the doubt from people like us on the outside looking in, I also reserve that benefit of the doubt for Dahmen because I’ve been in plenty of situations where I knew a guy was a cheater even though I didn’t catch him red handed.

 

And that goes to lowheels point aboot that there must be an agenda here before this incident. Who walks around thinking everyone is a cheater. ? Unless it’s been seen before ? And nobody has accused him before this. So why the predetermined “ cheater “ idea ? That’s a huge river to jump in my book.

[Nixhex524]

I totally understand people wanting to give Kang the benefit of the doubt. I even get the eye rolling of someone ranting on Twitter about a ruling they didn't like. I'm at a total loss though when people say Dahmen wasn't firm & confrontational in the moment. He clearly was.

 

As far as the drop goes, I think it's hard to look at the information as we know it and not conclude there's a high probability that Kang took a bad drop, and I mean a really bad drop. Can we say that with 100% certainty? No and I guess whatever you think that probability is, be it 40%, 80% or whatever that will probably drive your opinion on this matter. Did Kang knowingly take a bad drop? Impossible to say but with so many people arguing against the drop he took and his playing competitor vehemently and hotly disagreeing with it I don't see how one can conclude anything other than Kang probably at least suspected he was taking a bad drop but either blatantly cheated or gave himself the benefit of the doubt. That still leaves room that his drop was appropriate but YMMV on how much room there is and if he acted appropriately given the circumstances.

 

Great post. Well said.

 

I also think that was a great post and well said. So hilarious to me that we disagree on the cheating allegation after both loving that post.

 

My beliefs are . If there is an ounce of doubt , we don't cal folks cheaters. Same as we don't convict for murder etc ( in theory ). There are more than 1 ounce of doubt here.

 

I don't even disagree with this either.... I just think the difference lies, in a court room and judge and jury are present throughout the case/trial. They are given all the facts/non facts and left to decide. In this case, there was no judge/RO present that witnessed any of it so it was left up to Kang even after Dahmen and others claimed they saw it differently. Is Kang a "cheater"? I don't know if that's 100% accurate, but if Kang knows he got a better drop than he deserved because of his POV, then in my mind, yes, he is. By knowingly deceiving a RO for a better drop is BS.... It SEEMS that way to me based on witness accounts, but I have no way of definitively proving it.

 

Yes. But knowing you have a better drop after and knowing it at the time are two different things entirely. Knowing it after just means you were wrong. Not a cheater.

 

But you know in the moment that a 35 yd shot is better than a 230 yd redo of shot #4. It's not that much of a grey area I feel.

 

Your next post says, "Who walks around thinking everyone is a cheater?" Well, I don't think anyone is... Dahmen is not saying EVERYONE is, just so happens to be Kang who he thinks is in this situation. It's a very strong reach as an attempt to prove there is an agenda here.... It would be ridiculous to think Dahmen is going to have everyone on the PGA Tour besides himself DQ'd for cheating.

[Nixhex524]

Hypothetical conversation as well as sarcasm , both of which were explained Specificaly in the posts I made , so the reading impaired wouldn't be triggered. Apparently I failed at those explainations. Or. The more likely. You aren't reading the posts.

 

I'm reading.... I just think your arguments are weak. You can feel otherwise.... Arguing a position when you're not actually following the reported stories makes it tougher I can see.

As if anything reported these days has an ounce of credibility. I trust media to tell a story and have no bias much less than I do several members here with inside connections.

 

The Feinsteins of the sports reporting world are only looking for clicks. Hit piece after hit piece. It's what sells to the twits on Twitter. So no. I prefer to go by what my own eyes see and own ears hear. And my synopsis is that even if Kangs drop was misplaced , that doesn't make him a cheater. It makes him the recipient of a good break Plenty of bad ones out there to even the score and the field.

 

Well said. some people are not capable of independent thought and find comfort in group think. " that guy said it so it must be true" is the laziest form of discourse

 

It just keeps getting better!!!!! HAHAHHAHAAHAA I'd be all about hearing out your point of view, I still am, even though you haven't said a single thing yet to back up any of your conspiracy theories.

 

Not surprised we disagree here either, but I'd express my own definition of LAZY as not willing to read any of the reports and rather, make up all your own ridiculous nonsense that never even happened and call it fact. Yeah man, F group thinkers and big corporations!!!! Edgy bro.. I'm out. The stupid is too strong here.

[ALIF]

I will agree that lowheel seems to think there is some conspiracy against Kang here. As I posted previously, I think the grand marshall Kim Jung Un and a Las Vegas bookie have masterminded this whole plot with JD getting a huge payout, but no one seems to believe me or even want to acknowledge my theory. Whoda thunk? LOL! Come on lowheel, this was a conspiracy!!!!!!

[ClintDagger]

I totally understand people wanting to give Kang the benefit of the doubt. I even get the eye rolling of someone ranting on Twitter about a ruling they didn't like. I'm at a total loss though when people say Dahmen wasn't firm & confrontational in the moment. He clearly was.

 

As far as the drop goes, I think it's hard to look at the information as we know it and not conclude there's a high probability that Kang took a bad drop, and I mean a really bad drop. Can we say that with 100% certainty? No and I guess whatever you think that probability is, be it 40%, 80% or whatever that will probably drive your opinion on this matter. Did Kang knowingly take a bad drop? Impossible to say but with so many people arguing against the drop he took and his playing competitor vehemently and hotly disagreeing with it I don't see how one can conclude anything other than Kang probably at least suspected he was taking a bad drop but either blatantly cheated or gave himself the benefit of the doubt. That still leaves room that his drop was appropriate but YMMV on how much room there is and if he acted appropriately given the circumstances.

 

Great post. Well said.

 

I also think that was a great post and well said. So hilarious to me that we disagree on the cheating allegation after both loving that post.

 

My beliefs are . If there is an ounce of doubt , we don’t cal folks cheaters. Same as we don’t convict for murder etc ( in theory ). There are more than 1 ounce of doubt here.

I think when it comes to Dahmen blatantly calling Kang a cheater, we would have to have been in his shoes in that moment to know how called for or uncalled for that was. If you’ve played competitive golf at any level, and I’m talking juniors, to HS, to college, to professional, you’ve encountered cheaters. I’m talking guys that miraculously find their ball when you know it wasn’t findable. Guys that try to shave strokes. Guys that take bad drops. Guys that definitively declare their ball went into a hazard to avoid a lost ball penalty when you know that can’t be determined from the vantage point at which they originally hit.

 

My point is, and I bet we’ve all been there, sometimes you know when a guy is cheating and isn’t just “mistaken”. I’m not saying that this was the case with Kang because we weren’t in Kang’s shoes and we weren’t in Dahmen’s either. But as much as Kang May deserve the benefit of the doubt from people like us on the outside looking in, I also reserve that benefit of the doubt for Dahmen because I’ve been in plenty of situations where I knew a guy was a cheater even though I didn’t catch him red handed.

 

And that goes to lowheels point aboot that there must be an agenda here before this incident. Who walks around thinking everyone is a cheater. ? Unless it’s been seen before ? And nobody has accused him before this. So why the predetermined “ cheater “ idea ? That’s a huge river to jump in my book.

I disagree that there HAS to be an agenda. Is that a possibility? Absolutely. But it’s also quite possible that Dahmen saw the shot well enough to know Kang was taking a bad drop. I reject the notion that it’s impossible for Dahmen to make the judgment from where he was. I can stand on the opposite side of a fairway and watch one of my foursome hit a shot and be able to tell you whether it was a 2 yard draw or a 50 yard snap hook which from this story it appears is all Dahmen would have had to see. Could he tell a 2 yard draw from a 4 yard draw? Probably not. But based on the stated entry point and where the ball landed Kang’s shot would have had to have a lot of curve to it and if JD saw a relatively straight ball that might be enough to make him angry at the drop.