So really...re: divots...

[HatsForBats]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @Mikey5e said:

> > The best post I have seeing in this thread is the one that stated "divots are not man-made". This is the type of logic that supports the idea play it as it lies in an unrepaired divot.

 

> and no matter how often you're told the ball flies onto and off of the fairway but is intended to be rolled over the putting surface

 

You keep bringing that up like it is some kind of valid point. Yep, you usually roll a ball on the putting green and usually, not always, fly a ball to the green but that doesn't change anything. The point is the influence of the condition on the shot to be played.

 

If you were not able to fix anything on the green would you be more or less likely to hole a putt that has an imperfection in your way as compared to the same putt with no imperfections that could potentially influence that stroke? It's rhetorical.

 

When playing from a fairway divot hole are you more or less likely to get the ball closer to the hole as compared to having to play from the same location but not in a divot (hole)? Again, It's rhetorical.

 

You know the answer and agree with my answer but would probably never admit it.

[trilerian]

Personally, I think that hitting out of "divot holes" is a recipe for disaster. It opens the door for personal injury, and further damage to a golf course. Of course, for all the pros out there, who are skilled in hitting out of divot holes like it is a perfect fairway lie, there is no issue. But, most of us golfers on this planet are hacks, and at times, hacks dig deep. Can you imagine a hack hitting a shot out of a hacks divot hole. Now you are left with a trench...

In the end though, how much does it really matter? How often does your ball come to rest in a divot hole? The last time it happened to me, it was actually in the rough and I was thankful that I didn't have to hit out of 6" deep Kentucky blue grass.

 

I vote; free relief from divot holes, let's ruin it for everyone else!

[Colin L]

> @trilerian said:

> Personally, I think that hitting out of "divot holes" is a recipe for disaster. It opens the door for personal injury, and further damage to a golf course. Of course, for all the pros out there, who are skilled in hitting out of divot holes like it is a perfect fairway lie, there is no issue. But, most of us golfers on this planet are hacks, and at times, hacks dig deep. Can you imagine a hack hitting a shot out of a hacks divot hole. Now you are left with a trench...

> In the end though, how much does it really matter? How often does your ball come to rest in a divot hole? The last time it happened to me, it was actually in the rough and I was thankful that I didn't have to hit out of 6" deep Kentucky blue grass.

>

> I vote; free relief from divot holes, let's ruin it for everyone else!

 

Further damage to an already damaged bit of ground is half as significant as getting relief from the already damaged area and creating new damage nearby.

[sui generis]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @"sui generis" said:

> > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > @Pepperturbo said: It's beyond comprehension why people argue as if they are entitled to perfect fairway conditions, yet don't put the time in to be skilled enough to benefit from said conditions.

> > >

> > > I don't think it's entitlement any more than thinking you are entitled to a perfect green. On the green, you are "entitled" to a putting surface free of man made imperfections. On the fairway, you should be "entitled" to a lie that is free of man made imperfections. Not entitled to "perfect conditions" in either situation.

> > >

> >

> > Competitive golf is not for cry babies. The successful players accept the lucky breaks along with the unfavorable ones. Those tasked with making the Rules are well aware of that and have no inclination to "beer league" the Rules.

>

> All players accept the breaks whether you consider them a cry baby or not. Otherwise they get DQ'ed. Allowing relief from fairway divot holes would be much less Bush League IMO. YMMV.

>

>

 

You're not a "cry baby," Hats.

[Mikey5e]

WRX logic :

Fixing a ball mark is accepted, proper, and 'the right thing to do', ball wanting relief from a divot, which is exponentially larger, is 'complaining', shouldn't ever be considered, and it should be looked down upon?

 

[Krt22]

> @Mikey5e said:

> WRX logic :

> Fixing a ball mark is accepted, proper, and 'the right thing to do', ball wanting relief from a divot, which is exponentially larger, is 'complaining', shouldn't ever be considered, and it should be looked down upon?

>

 

Not WRX logic, just the rules of golf. Repairing a ball mark and getting full relief from a divot are two very different things, on requires moving your ball, one does not. What if there is a ball mark right in front of your ball, instead of repairing it, you get full relief and in doing so get a better line that isn't right on a fall line?

 

I also can't see how they are at all comparable when statistically the likely hood of encountering a ball mark on the green and a divot hole in a huge fairway are different by orders of magnitude.

[nsxguy]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @nsxguy said:

> > > @Mikey5e said:

> > > The best post I have seeing in this thread is the one that stated "divots are not man-made". This is the type of logic that supports the idea play it as it lies in an unrepaired divot.

>

> > and no matter how often you're told the ball flies onto and off of the fairway but is intended to be rolled over the putting surface

>

> You keep bringing that up like it is some kind of valid point. Yep, you usually roll a ball on the putting green and usually, not always, fly a ball to the green but that doesn't change anything. The point is the influence of the condition on the shot to be played.

>

> If you were not able to fix anything on the green would you be more or less likely to hole a putt that has an imperfection in your way as compared to the same putt with no imperfections that could potentially influence that stroke? It's rhetorical.

>

> When playing from a fairway divot hole are you more or less likely to get the ball closer to the hole as compared to having to play from the same location but not in a divot (hole)? Again, It's rhetorical.

>

> You know the answer and agree with my answer but would probably never admit it.

 

Since the questions are rhetorical I guess I don't need to answer. LOL

 

But you're missing the point. Of course I agree with BOTH of your premises. So what ?

 

You can't get relief from something you can't define. Best yer gonna do is LCP all the time,,,,,,, which some/many/most probably do anyway.

 

The Rules were completely overhauled and simplified. "Divots" didn't make the cut. Oh well. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[davep043]

> @nsxguy said:

 

> The Rules were completely overhauled and simplified. "Divots" didn't make the cut. Oh well. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

>

Divots were specifically evaluated, and a specific decision was made not to allow relief.

This whole topic is about drawing lines. THIS deserves relief, but THAT doesn't. Almost all laws and rules have to draw a line somewhere, and to some extent it has to be a little arbitrary. This choice is based on some long-standing traditions, but its still to some extent arbitrary. In my opinion, its the right decision, but for those who don't share the same regard for the history of the game and the centuries-long evolution of the rules may have a different opinion. Fine. For now, the ruling bodies share my opinion, and that's the way things will be for the foreseeable future.

 

[Roadking2003]

> @Pepperturbo said:> As I said, can't support rule changes to satisfy complainers.

 

OK, so you must oppose the new rule that allows us to keep the flag in while putting. And the rule that allows us to repair damage on the green.

 

Or do you only support "rule changes to satisfy complainers" when you agree with them?

[Vindog]

> @Mikey5e said:

> WRX logic :

> Fixing a ball mark is accepted, proper, and 'the right thing to do', ball wanting relief from a divot, which is exponentially larger, is 'complaining', shouldn't ever be considered, and it should be looked down upon?

>

Just...no. Even for a troll post this is terrible.

[Mikey5e]

> @Vindog said:

> > @Mikey5e said:

> > WRX logic :

> > Fixing a ball mark is accepted, proper, and 'the right thing to do', ball wanting relief from a divot, which is exponentially larger, is 'complaining', shouldn't ever be considered, and it should be looked down upon?

> >

> Just...no. Even for a troll post this is terrible.

 

I can see you don't have any logical answers to make, that usually happens when you know the other is telling the truth and has logic. Other rules get changed, like the flagstick rule this year, and I think it's not too far out of the question to consider a rule change for unrepaired Fairway divots. That's all the rest of the people are saying, except for people like you like to name call to get their point across.

[nsxguy]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @Pepperturbo said:> As I said, can't support rule changes to satisfy complainers.

>

> OK, so you must oppose the new rule that allows us to keep the flag in while putting. And the rule that allows us to repair damage on the green.

>

> Or do you only support "rule changes to satisfy complainers" when you agree with them?

 


 

[Mikey5e]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @Pepperturbo said:> As I said, can't support rule changes to satisfy complainers.

> >

> > OK, so you must oppose the new rule that allows us to keep the flag in while putting. And the rule that allows us to repair damage on the green.

> >

> > Or do you only support "rule changes to satisfy complainers" when you agree with them?

>

> 

>

My goal is 1,000 posts for this thread.

[Roadking2003]

> @Mikey5e said:> My goal is 1,000 posts for this thread.

 

We need somebody to come back and explain the "divots are not man-made" quote.

[North Butte]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @Mikey5e said:> My goal is 1,000 posts for this thread.

>

> We need somebody to come back and explain the "divots are not man-made" quote.

 

Well shoot, that's an easy one. Obviously divots are made by golf clubs, not men. It ain't like the golfer scratches them out with his fingernails.

[sui generis]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @Mikey5e said:> My goal is 1,000 posts for this thread.

>

> We need somebody to come back and explain the "divots are not man-made" quote.

 

What relevance does "man made" have to do with the Rules? The Rules only reference artificial and natural.

[HatsForBats]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > @Mikey5e said:

> > > > The best post I have seeing in this thread is the one that stated "divots are not man-made". This is the type of logic that supports the idea play it as it lies in an unrepaired divot.

> >

> > > and no matter how often you're told the ball flies onto and off of the fairway but is intended to be rolled over the putting surface

> >

> > You keep bringing that up like it is some kind of valid point. Yep, you usually roll a ball on the putting green and usually, not always, fly a ball to the green but that doesn't change anything. The point is the influence of the condition on the shot to be played.

> >

> > If you were not able to fix anything on the green would you be more or less likely to hole a putt that has an imperfection in your way as compared to the same putt with no imperfections that could potentially influence that stroke? It's rhetorical.

> >

> > When playing from a fairway divot hole are you more or less likely to get the ball closer to the hole as compared to having to play from the same location but not in a divot (hole)? Again, It's rhetorical.

> >

> > You know the answer and agree with my answer but would probably never admit it.

>

> Since the questions are rhetorical I guess I don't need to answer. LOL

>

> But you're missing the point. Of course I agree with BOTH of your premises. So what ?

>

> You can't get relief from something you can't define. Best yer gonna do is LCP all the time,,,,,,, which some/many/most probably do anyway.

>

> The Rules were completely overhauled and simplified. "Divots" didn't make the cut. Oh well. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

>

 

So... 'the ball flies onto and off of the fairway but is intended to be rolled over the putting surface' is not a valid counter argument.

 

A divot (or divot hole) is clearly defined. Either it is known or virtually certain it is a divot (hole) or it is not. It's a yes or no proposition.

[HatsForBats]

> @davep043 said:

> > @nsxguy said:

>

> > The Rules were completely overhauled and simplified. "Divots" didn't make the cut. Oh well. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

> >

> Divots were specifically evaluated, and a specific decision was made not to allow relief...

> For now, the ruling bodies share my opinion, and that's the way things will be for the foreseeable future.

>

 

No doubt that things are unlikely to change. When those that make the decision are not subjected to the condition in the same way many golfers are it won't be considered an issue. Hitting out of a divot where the fairway peels away like warm butter is not as big of a disadvantage as hitting out of a divot on your average or below average condition public course. When you have crews that primp the course they also won't run into the situation nearly as often. Out of sight, out of mind.

 

Just curios. How many of those that make the final decisions regularly play on below average public courses? Is that known?

 

[Pepperturbo]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @Pepperturbo said:> As I said, can't support rule changes to satisfy complainers.

>

> OK, so you must oppose the new rule that allows us to keep the flag in while putting. And the rule that allows us to repair damage on the green.

>

> Or do you only support "rule changes to satisfy complainers" when you agree with them?

 

I still pull the pin before putting as many friends do, and don't tap down marks that are seen as spike marks in my line, etc. I play the game like I always play it by the rules as I know them, and I don't drop from the knee. However, in a tournament I am required to follow a given rule, I abide by the rule.

[Sawgrass]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @nsxguy said:

> >

> > > The Rules were completely overhauled and simplified. "Divots" didn't make the cut. Oh well. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

> > >

> > Divots were specifically evaluated, and a specific decision was made not to allow relief...

> > For now, the ruling bodies share my opinion, and that's the way things will be for the foreseeable future.

> >

>

> No doubt that things are unlikely to change. When those that make the decision are not subjected to the condition in the same way many golfers are it won't be considered an issue. Hitting out of a divot where the fairway peels away like warm butter is not as big of a disadvantage as hitting out of a divot on your average or below average condition public course. When you have crews that primp the course they also won't run into the situation nearly as often. Out of sight, out of mind.

>

> Just curios. How many of those that make the final decisions regularly play on below average public courses? Is that known?

>

Teams of people from both the USGA and R&A reconsider all the rules, make sweeping changes, consider yet firmly reject free relief from divot holes, tell us why they've done that, and you remain stuck on a conspiracy theory that they don't fully understand the implications of divot holes. That seems pretty far fetched to me, I'll just take them at their word.

 

Why can't you accept the fact that learned people simply disagree with you? I'm not saying that your preference is crazy -- I'm just saying that the status quo on this issue is better.

 

[ThinkingPlus]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @nsxguy said:

> >

> > > The Rules were completely overhauled and simplified. "Divots" didn't make the cut. Oh well. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

> > >

> > Divots were specifically evaluated, and a specific decision was made not to allow relief...

> > For now, the ruling bodies share my opinion, and that's the way things will be for the foreseeable future.

> >

>

> No doubt that things are unlikely to change. When those that make the decision are not subjected to the condition in the same way many golfers are it won't be considered an issue. Hitting out of a divot where the fairway peels away like warm butter is not as big of a disadvantage as hitting out of a divot on your average or below average condition public course. When you have crews that primp the course they also won't run into the situation nearly as often. Out of sight, out of mind.

>

> Just curios. How many of those that make the final decisions regularly play on below average public courses? Is that known?

>

 

Hitting out of bad lies in the fairway is part of the game whether the folks running the RBs ever have to do it or not. In some cases I prefer playing from a divot rather than a "cuppy" lie on very thin bermuda over hard pan. At my home course I end up in the latter for more often than the former.

[Newby]

> @HatsForBats said:

> A divot (or divot hole) is clearly defined. Either it is known or virtually certain it is a divot (hole) or it is not. It's a yes or no proposition.

Please define a divot hole by saying other than it is hole made when taking a divot. The definition must enable a player to identify a divot hole when he ha no knowledge of whether a divot has been taken or not.

 

[HatsForBats]

> @Newby said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > A divot (or divot hole) is clearly defined. Either it is known or virtually certain it is a divot (hole) or it is not. It's a yes or no proposition.

> Please define a divot hole by saying other than it is hole made when taking a divot. The definition must enable a player to identify a divot hole when he ha no knowledge of whether a divot has been taken or not.

>

 

https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/comment/18967462#Comment_18967462

[Roadking2003]

> @"sui generis" said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @Mikey5e said:> My goal is 1,000 posts for this thread.

> >

> > We need somebody to come back and explain the "divots are not man-made" quote.

>

> What relevance does "man made" have to do with the Rules? The Rules only reference artificial and natural.

 

The relevance is that somebody claimed that divots are not man-made.

[Roadking2003]

> @Pepperturbo said: I play the game like I always play it by the rules as I know them, and **I don't drop from the knee**.

 

So you don't play by the rules.

[HatsForBats]

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > > @davep043 said:

> > > > @nsxguy said:

> > >

> > > > The Rules were completely overhauled and simplified. "Divots" didn't make the cut. Oh well. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

> > > >

> > > Divots were specifically evaluated, and a specific decision was made not to allow relief...

> > > For now, the ruling bodies share my opinion, and that's the way things will be for the foreseeable future.

> > >

> >

> > No doubt that things are unlikely to change. When those that make the decision are not subjected to the condition in the same way many golfers are it won't be considered an issue. Hitting out of a divot where the fairway peels away like warm butter is not as big of a disadvantage as hitting out of a divot on your average or below average condition public course. When you have crews that primp the course they also won't run into the situation nearly as often. Out of sight, out of mind.

> >

> > Just curios. How many of those that make the final decisions regularly play on below average public courses? Is that known?

> >

> Teams of people from both the USGA and R&A reconsider all the rules, make sweeping changes, consider yet firmly reject free relief from divot holes, tell us why they've done that, and you remain stuck on a conspiracy theory that they don't fully understand the implications of divot holes. That seems pretty far fetched to me, I'll just take them at their word.

>

> Why can't you accept the fact that learned people simply disagree with you? I'm not saying that your preference is crazy -- I'm just saying that the status quo on this issue is better.

>

 

How many people that currently make the final decisions are people that have extensive and intimate experience at below average or average public courses? Zero? I honestly don't know the answer.

[Roadking2003]

> @HatsForBats said: A divot (or divot hole) is clearly defined. Either it is known or virtually certain it is a divot (hole) or it is not. It's a yes or no proposition.

 

Wasn't that the pitch mark on the green rule last year?

[Pepperturbo]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > @nsxguy said:

> > > >

> > > > > The Rules were completely overhauled and simplified. "Divots" didn't make the cut. Oh well. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

> > > > >

> > > > Divots were specifically evaluated, and a specific decision was made not to allow relief...

> > > > For now, the ruling bodies share my opinion, and that's the way things will be for the foreseeable future.

> > > >

> > >

> > > No doubt that things are unlikely to change. When those that make the decision are not subjected to the condition in the same way many golfers are it won't be considered an issue. Hitting out of a divot where the fairway peels away like warm butter is not as big of a disadvantage as hitting out of a divot on your average or below average condition public course. When you have crews that primp the course they also won't run into the situation nearly as often. Out of sight, out of mind.

> > >

> > > Just curios. How many of those that make the final decisions regularly play on below average public courses? Is that known?

> > >

> > Teams of people from both the USGA and R&A reconsider all the rules, make sweeping changes, consider yet firmly reject free relief from divot holes, tell us why they've done that, and you remain stuck on a conspiracy theory that they don't fully understand the implications of divot holes. That seems pretty far fetched to me, I'll just take them at their word.

> >

> > Why can't you accept the fact that learned people simply disagree with you? I'm not saying that your preference is crazy -- I'm just saying that the status quo on this issue is better.

> >

>

> How many people that currently make the final decisions are people that have extensive and intimate experience at below average or average public courses? Zero? I honestly don't know the answer.

 

What does the level, of course "below average or average public courses" have to do with their decision or committee members? As a reference point, St. Andrews and it's nearby courses are munis. I would venture a guess those in the R&A play them and other munis often.

 

I don't believe anyone that manages a public dog-track would likely step up to an attention-getting leadership role with the R&A or USGA, least this X-BOD member hasn't seen it. As I understand it, committee members are nominated by those on the membership roster and voted into leadership, much like USGA and each state-wide Association here in the US.

[Mr. Bean]

man-made adjective

\ ˈman-ˈmād , -ˌmād\

Definition of man-made

: manufactured, created, or constructed by human beings

specifically : SYNTHETIC

man-made fibers

 

(scource: Merriam-Webster)

 

Naturally this post is only for those with brain as those without would not understand it anyway.

[sui generis]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @"sui generis" said:

> > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > @Mikey5e said:> My goal is 1,000 posts for this thread.

> > >

> > > We need somebody to come back and explain the "divots are not man-made" quote.

> >

> > What relevance does "man made" have to do with the Rules? The Rules only reference artificial and natural.

>

> The relevance is that somebody claimed that divots are not man-made.

 

Why would you care to extend the argument about something that's not found in the Rules?