So really...re: divots...

[Sawgrass]

> @PoolPond said:

> > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > @davep043 said:

> > > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > > @"sui generis" said:

> > > > > If only bad breaks were offset with good breaks!

> > > > >

> > > > > Wait, perhaps they often are . . . ball hit into the woods, hits a tree and caroms back into the fairway. Or, wow, that crappy swing we make hits the ball into the rough and low and behold we find it sitting up in a perfect lie.

> > > >

> > > > Good breaks really have nothing to do with it and it still baffles me when players try to use that argument. I want the individual competition to come down to players skill as much as possible. Certainly you cannot eliminate all bad or good breaks but this one just seems very simple and frankly common sense.

> > > >

> > > > I have to wonder how many of you that are so against the change would react if a rule, to allow relief from a fairway divot, was already in place for your full golfing life. If suddenly they changed it to not allow relief I have to think many of you would think it was not a good change. Me thinks you are stuck in the tradition of it rather than looking at with common sense.

> > >

> > > Speaking only for myself, if I thought it was possible to accurately define a divot hole, AND accurately define the point at which is has grown in enough to no longer be a divot hole, I might support a change. You'd have to deal with divot holes that have been filled in with sand flush with the surrounding grass, and with divots that have been replaced, divots that were replaced a few days ago and the grass has died, lots of potential variations. I don't believe its possible to do that, so I prefer to leave things the way they are, and have been since the beginning of the golf rules.

> > > And to be clear, learning to be able to hit a ball from a divot hole is definitely a skill. Its a bad break to end up in a difficult spot in a fairway, its a matter of skill when you deal with it successfully.

> >

> > In addition to being a skill to execute the shot, how one mentally handles the divot issue is paramount to successfully completing the hole and round. That mental toughness can be learned and differentiates the better players from the merely good. No one likes playing from a divot, but treat it as an opportunity to excel and you can become the kind of player that all others hate to compete against. Or just take pride in the fact that you did not let that one bad break derail your round whether you successfully executed the shot or not. One can be a winner or a whiner. It is a choice.

>

> You are right on. I have seen this up and close many times but one situation has stayed with me. It was the Ryder Cup when held at Vahalla. Alternate shot day. I want to say Rose was partnered with Poulter. Their drive lands directly in front of me in the fairway when I was mashaling a strange hazard area behind me. The ball rolls into a good size stick that still had leaves on which ended up underneath thier ball. The stick which was probably as wide as a sharpie was directly on the club face side of the ball. They could not move it because the ball would have moved. I was staring at it 3 feet away for the few minutes it took them to get to it. Justin gets to it, says "hmm look at that", pulls out a club and hits it perfectly in a matter of seconds and was gone. No moaning, no laboring over what to do, just look at it, grab the club and whack it with all the confidence in the world.

 

Justin seems to have created his own "free" relief. I love stories like that.

[HatsForBats]

> @davep043 said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > > @"sui generis" said:

> > > If only bad breaks were offset with good breaks!

> > >

> > > Wait, perhaps they often are . . . ball hit into the woods, hits a tree and caroms back into the fairway. Or, wow, that crappy swing we make hits the ball into the rough and low and behold we find it sitting up in a perfect lie.

> >

> > Good breaks really have nothing to do with it and it still baffles me when players try to use that argument. I want the individual competition to come down to players skill as much as possible. Certainly you cannot eliminate all bad or good breaks but this one just seems very simple and frankly common sense.

> >

> > I have to wonder how many of you that are so against the change would react if a rule, to allow relief from a fairway divot, was already in place for your full golfing life. If suddenly they changed it to not allow relief I have to think many of you would think it was not a good change. Me thinks you are stuck in the tradition of it rather than looking at with common sense.

>

> Speaking only for myself, if I thought it was possible to accurately define a divot hole, AND accurately define the point at which is has grown in enough to no longer be a divot hole, I might support a change. You'd have to deal with divot holes that have been filled in with sand flush with the surrounding grass, and with divots that have been replaced, divots that were replaced a few days ago and the grass has died, lots of potential variations. I don't believe its possible to do that, so I prefer to leave things the way they are, and have been since the beginning of the golf rules.

> And to be clear, learning to be able to hit a ball from a divot hole is definitely a skill. Its a bad break to end up in a difficult spot in a fairway, its a matter of skill when you deal with it successfully.

 

To be clear I didn't say being able to hit a ball from a divot does not take skill. If a player of any skill level ends up in a divot their chances of hitting a good next shot have decreased even if they are a very skilled player (for their skill level) when hitting from a divot. Essentially when having to hit out of a divot I would liken the loss of accuracy to essentially being that player temporarily becomes a player of a lower skill level (as compared to hitting from the same relative location but not in a divot) when hitting from that condition.

[Shilgy]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > @"sui generis" said:

> > > > If only bad breaks were offset with good breaks!

> > > >

> > > > Wait, perhaps they often are . . . ball hit into the woods, hits a tree and caroms back into the fairway. Or, wow, that crappy swing we make hits the ball into the rough and low and behold we find it sitting up in a perfect lie.

> > >

> > > Good breaks really have nothing to do with it and it still baffles me when players try to use that argument. I want the individual competition to come down to players skill as much as possible. Certainly you cannot eliminate all bad or good breaks but this one just seems very simple and frankly common sense.

> > >

> > > I have to wonder how many of you that are so against the change would react if a rule, to allow relief from a fairway divot, was already in place for your full golfing life. If suddenly they changed it to not allow relief I have to think many of you would think it was not a good change. Me thinks you are stuck in the tradition of it rather than looking at with common sense.

> >

> > Speaking only for myself, if I thought it was possible to accurately define a divot hole, AND accurately define the point at which is has grown in enough to no longer be a divot hole, I might support a change. You'd have to deal with divot holes that have been filled in with sand flush with the surrounding grass, and with divots that have been replaced, divots that were replaced a few days ago and the grass has died, lots of potential variations. I don't believe its possible to do that, so I prefer to leave things the way they are, and have been since the beginning of the golf rules.

> > And to be clear, learning to be able to hit a ball from a divot hole is definitely a skill. Its a bad break to end up in a difficult spot in a fairway, its a matter of skill when you deal with it successfully.

>

> To be clear I didn't say being able to hit a ball from a divot does not take skill. If a player of any skill level ends up in a divot their chances of hitting a good next shot have decreased even if they are a very skilled player (for their skill level) when hitting from a divot. Essentially when having to hit out of a divot I would liken the loss of accuracy to essentially being that player temporarily becomes a player of a lower skill level (as compared to hitting from the same relative location but not in a divot) when hitting from that condition.

 

It is the first part of the post you replied to that is the essence of the issue. When a divot becomes no longer a divot cannot properly be defined.

[Roadking2003]

> @HatsForBats said:

> IMO It's not a non-issue in a competitive round even if it would only happen 1 in 100 rounds. We don't have accurate enough figures to get at how often it happens but we do know it happens enough that the subject keeps coming up again and again. From my perspective I wouldn't see it as my oppenent gaining an advanatge over me if they were in a fairway divot and were allowed relief. If we are tied on the last hole where both of us hit drives next to each other in the fairway and my opponent lands in a divot I would **much** prefer they are allowed relief from the divot. The same as I wouldn't want a footprint in a green-side bunker to help determine the outcome.

 

Exactly. The number of times you land in a divot is immaterial.

 

I recall in 1998 at The Olympic Club Payne Steward hit a perfect drive except it ended up in a divot and he lost the US Open. He shouldn't have been penalized for hitting a perfect drive.

 

 

[Roadking2003]

> @davep043 said:

> And to be clear, **learning to be able to hit a ball from a divot hole is definitely a skill**. Its a bad break to end up in a difficult spot in a fairway, its a matter of skill when you deal with it successfully.

 

So is learning to hit off a cart path.

[Newby]

> @Roadking2003 said:

 

> I recall in 1998 at The Olympic Club Payne Steward hit a perfect drive except it ended up in a divot and he lost the US Open. He shouldn't have been penalized for hitting a perfect drive.

>

Well the RBs have made it pretty clear. They are not going to change anything in the foreseeable future.

As it happens the R&A experimented with the idea in Scotland many years ago but abandoned it. It just didn't work. No one could agree just what a divot hole was.

 

 

[MtlJeff]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > And to be clear, **learning to be able to hit a ball from a divot hole is definitely a skill**. Its a bad break to end up in a difficult spot in a fairway, its a matter of skill when you deal with it successfully.

>

> So is learning to hit off a cart path.

 

If you hit ball first you're always fine

 

I don't like hitting off cart paths because it ruins your clubs. Have had to do it twice in CC's the past two years. Sucks, my 7 iron still has the scars

[BlackDiamondPar5]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > IMO It's not a non-issue in a competitive round even if it would only happen 1 in 100 rounds. We don't have accurate enough figures to get at how often it happens but we do know it happens enough that the subject keeps coming up again and again. From my perspective I wouldn't see it as my oppenent gaining an advanatge over me if they were in a fairway divot and were allowed relief. If we are tied on the last hole where both of us hit drives next to each other in the fairway and my opponent lands in a divot I would **much** prefer they are allowed relief from the divot. The same as I wouldn't want a footprint in a green-side bunker to help determine the outcome.

>

> Exactly. The number of times you land in a divot is immaterial.

>

> I recall in 1998 at The Olympic Club Payne Steward hit a perfect drive except it ended up in a divot and he lost the US Open. He shouldn't have been penalized for hitting a perfect drive.

>

>

 

I've asked both you and @HatsForBats at least 3 times to tell us how it would be determined that a divot is something entitled to relief vs healed sufficiently? You at least answered and said "when the golfer decides it is." Fair answer, but then who is the arbiter to determine whether the golfer is abusing it and using the rule to gain a preferred lie simply because there is a small imperfection in the lie? I can see this turning into a full-time lift and fluff. Only solution I could see is allowing 1 per 18 which would force golfers to use it with care.

[rogolf]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > IMO It's not a non-issue in a competitive round even if it would only happen 1 in 100 rounds. We don't have accurate enough figures to get at how often it happens but we do know it happens enough that the subject keeps coming up again and again. From my perspective I wouldn't see it as my oppenent gaining an advanatge over me if they were in a fairway divot and were allowed relief. If we are tied on the last hole where both of us hit drives next to each other in the fairway and my opponent lands in a divot I would **much** prefer they are allowed relief from the divot. The same as I wouldn't want a footprint in a green-side bunker to help determine the outcome.

>

> Exactly. The number of times you land in a divot is immaterial.

>

> I recall in 1998 at The Olympic Club Payne Steward hit a perfect drive except it ended up in a divot and he lost the US Open. He shouldn't have been penalized for hitting a perfect drive.

>

>

 

The drive may have been perfect, but the lie wasn't, and he shouldn't get to make the lie perfect. Somebody wrote a book called, "Golf is Not a Game of Perfect". If you want perfect lies, play billiards (but even then you have the cushions to ruin those perfect lies, making the next shot difficult and requiring skill to succeed).

[SNIPERBBB]

Even billiards isn't perfect unless you have a mint or recently refurbished table as cushions get weak or uneven spots, the felt gets shabby, etc.

[Hawkeye77]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @"sui generis" said:

> > If only bad breaks were offset with good breaks!

> >

> > Wait, perhaps they often are . . . ball hit into the woods, hits a tree and caroms back into the fairway. Or, wow, that crappy swing we make hits the ball into the rough and low and behold we find it sitting up in a perfect lie.

>

> Good breaks really have nothing to do with it and it still baffles me when players try to use that argument. I want the individual competition to come down to players skill as much as possible. Certainly you cannot eliminate all bad or good breaks but this one just seems very simple and frankly common sense.

>

> I have to wonder how many of you that are so against the change would react if a rule, to allow relief from a fairway divot, was already in place for your full golfing life. If suddenly they changed it to not allow relief I have to think many of you would think it was not a good change. Me thinks you are stuck in the tradition of it rather than looking at with common sense.

 

Or just applying the same common sense the rules have applied to this situation for 200+ years.

[rogolf]

> @SNIPERBBB said:

> Even billiards isn't perfect unless you have a mint or recently refurbished table as cushions get wife or uneven spots, the felt gets shabby, etc.

 

Do they allow you to move the ball if you're in a "divot" or mark on the felt left by another player? (somewhat rhetorical)

[Hawkeye77]

Give people relief from divot scrapes and next they'll be wanting a guaranteed option of a ball in the fairway after hitting OB . . . . hmmmmm.

[Krt22]

> @Hawkeye77 said:

> Give people relief from divot scrapes and next they'll be wanting a guaranteed option of a ball in the fairway after hitting OB . . . . hmmmmm.

 

You have that option in 2019. Just add 2 strokes

[nsxguy]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @nsxguy said:

> > > @davep043 said:

> > > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > > @SNIPERBBB said:

> > > > > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > > > > @SNIPERBBB said:

> > > > > > > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > > > > 40 rounds x 18 holes/round = 720 holes. Lets say there are 4 par3 per round so 720 - 160 = 560 fairway chances.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > 3 divot shots/560 = .00535 So 0.5% chance so far for hatsforbats. So like 1 out of 200...That's pretty close to almost never, imo.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > You do realize that is a 7.5% chance per round... right? So that would be about 34 Million times per year in the USA (450 Million'ish rounds per year). Your definition of 'almost never' is much, much different than mine. For the record I don't think the chance is anywhere near that great (7.5% per round). Just pointing out the flaw in your idea of 'almost never'.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Even if it were only 3.4 million times per year in the USA that is very significant IMO.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 7.5% chance per round would mean if you never miss a fairway in a round, you end up in a divot once a round.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Want to think about your 'math' again on that one?

> > > > >

> > > > > Not really just illustrating that those odds aren't correct.

> > > >

> > > > Your illustration is off.

> > > >

> > > > Question: How may fairways did I hit in those 560 tries (assuming 14 holes per round that are not par 3's)?

> > > > Answer: You don't know and neither do I. That info was never posted nor tracked.

> > > >

> > > > In order for the percent to be a guaranteed 100% when hitting all fairways in a round then I would have had to hit only 3 fairways out of those 560 tries. I don't have accurate stats on fairways hit in those rounds but I am pretty confident it is much greater than only 3 fairways in 40 rounds (560 tries).

> > > >

> > > > My guess is you are trying to multiply 14 x 7.5% but the 7.5% is the percent chance per **ROUND** that I landed in a fairway divot. It makes no mention of fairways hit percentage or number of fairways hit. You are just having a little niarB traF.

> > >

> > > I agree, @SNIPERBBB misunderstood the math. Even so, 7.5% per round means that I might have to hit out of a divot something like a half-dozen times in a year of golf (80 rounds or so). Some of those will be only a minor issue, one or two might be more severe. I won't like it, but its not that big a concern to me. Its certainly not worth changing the rules.

> >

> > Math, especially odds, have always fascinated me. I just wish I was better at it.

> >

> > So it appears our resident "calculations" expert, H4B, the guy who crunched all the numbers at his club to "correct" the handicap allowance/allocation, has multiplied the odds, .5% times 15 (presumably the number of fairways in a round) and came up with a 7.5% chance that he'd be in a divot at some point in the round. (7.5% chance being approximately 1 in 14)

> >

> > That about right ?

> >

> > So if one flipped a coin 4 times and it came up heads every time does that mean the odds of the upcoming 5th flip are 80/20 in favor of tails ?

> >

> > I don't think so,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

> >

> >

>

> Let me simplify it so even you **might** understand. What percent is 3 divots divided by 40 rounds?

 

5,329 ?

 

I don't believe I addressed the coin question to you but, if you want me to answer your question, even though somebody already did the math, why don't you answer mine first ?

 

And BTW, I see divots in the rough as well. In fact, even more in the rough because guys fill their divots in the fairway - but the rough ? Not so much.

 

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @Vindog said:

> > 40 rounds x 18 holes/round = 720 holes. Lets say there are 4 par3 per round so 720 - 160 = 560 fairway chances.

> >

> > 3 divot shots/560 = .00535 So 0.5% chance so far for hatsforbats. So like 1 out of 200...That's pretty close to almost never, imo.

>

> **You do realize that is a 7.5% chance per round.**.. right? So that would be about 34 Million times per year in the USA (450 Million'ish rounds per year). Your definition of 'almost never' is much, much different than mine. For the record I don't think the chance is anywhere near that great (7.5% per round). Just pointing out the flaw in your idea of 'almost never'.

>

> Even if it were only 3.4 million times per year in the USA that is very significant IMO.

 

See above. YOU suggested it was a 7.5% chance per round.

 

Still sticking with that ? LMAO

[Schulzmc]

Spring Championship this past weekend. Crush my drive on a par 5. Definitely in the “go for it in two” zone. Find my ball in the middle of the fairway in an unfilled, deep, thin divot. The edges of my ball are touching grass on the left and the right, but the ball is easily more than half a ball beneath that grass on either side. No way to get my five wood on the ball. Punched out with a seven iron (it went about 70 yards) and ended up with a par instead of a great chance for birdie. Ended up out of the awards by one shot. It’s hard to see how that is a fair test of skill.

[Sawgrass]

I’m one up after 17. My opponent stripes one down the middle, then I hook one 15 yards left of the fairway but into a remarkably good lie. We both hit it on and two putt for pars, so I win.

 

My opponent says it’s hard to see how that is a fair test of skill. Said I should have put my ball in a divot hole in the rough so I would have had to play from the lie I deserved.

 

It’s golf. Deal.

[Mr. Bean]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > IMO It's not a non-issue in a competitive round even if it would only happen 1 in 100 rounds. We don't have accurate enough figures to get at how often it happens but we do know it happens enough that the subject keeps coming up again and again. From my perspective I wouldn't see it as my oppenent gaining an advanatge over me if they were in a fairway divot and were allowed relief. If we are tied on the last hole where both of us hit drives next to each other in the fairway and my opponent lands in a divot I would **much** prefer they are allowed relief from the divot. The same as I wouldn't want a footprint in a green-side bunker to help determine the outcome.

>

> Exactly. The number of times you land in a divot is immaterial.

>

> I recall in 1998 at The Olympic Club Payne Steward hit a perfect drive except it ended up in a divot and he lost the US Open. He shouldn't have been penalized for hitting a perfect drive.

>

>

 

How many times he missed the fairway and bogied due to the miss?

 

Payne did not miss winning that competition because of that single divot hole. Is that so hard to understand?

[Mr. Bean]

> @Schulzmc said:

> Spring Championship this past weekend. Crush my drive on a par 5. Definitely in the “go for it in two” zone. Find my ball in the middle of the fairway in an unfilled, deep, thin divot. The edges of my ball are touching grass on the left and the right, but the ball is easily more than half a ball beneath that grass on either side. No way to get my five wood on the ball. Punched out with a seven iron (it went about 70 yards) and ended up with a par instead of a great chance for birdie. Ended up out of the awards by one shot. It’s hard to see how that is a fair test of skill.

 

And you did not miss any putts that you could have sunk..? C'mon!!

[HatsForBats]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> >

> > Let me simplify it so even you **might** understand. What percent is 3 divots divided by 40 rounds?

>

> 5,329 ?

>

> I don't believe I addressed the coin question to you but, if you want me to answer your question, even though somebody already did the math, why don't you answer mine first ?

>

> And BTW, I see divots in the rough as well. In fact, even more in the rough because guys fill their divots in the fairway - but the rough ? Not so much.

>

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > > @Vindog said:

> > > 40 rounds x 18 holes/round = 720 holes. Lets say there are 4 par3 per round so 720 - 160 = 560 fairway chances.

> > >

> > > 3 divot shots/560 = .00535 So 0.5% chance so far for hatsforbats. So like 1 out of 200...That's pretty close to almost never, imo.

> >

> > **You do realize that is a 7.5% chance per round.**.. right? So that would be about 34 Million times per year in the USA (450 Million'ish rounds per year). Your definition of 'almost never' is much, much different than mine. For the record I don't think the chance is anywhere near that great (7.5% per round). Just pointing out the flaw in your idea of 'almost never'.

> >

> > Even if it were only 3.4 million times per year in the USA that is very significant IMO.

>

> See above. YOU suggested it was a 7.5% chance per round.

>

> Still sticking with that ? LMAO

 

3 divots in 40 rounds is 7.5%. If you don't understand the math on that I don't know what to tell you. If you think I suggested that is the actual chance of any player landing in a divot during any round then I don't what to tell you there either. I was merely pointing out that what the other poster labelled as an insignificant amount when breaking it down per fairway was actually significant in the context of a single round.

[Schulzmc]

> @Sawgrass said:

> I’m one up after 17. My opponent stripes one down the middle, then I hook one 15 yards left of the fairway but into a remarkably good lie. We both hit it on and two putt for pars, so I win.

>

> My opponent says it’s hard to see how that is a fair test of skill. Said I should have put my ball in a divot hole in the rough so I would have had to play from the lie I deserved.

>

> It’s golf. Deal.

 

I get that hitting it in the rough produces mixed results. Sometimes you catch a break. Other times you don’t. I love the challenge of putting a ball on the green from a fried egg in the trap. And in the same round I mentioned I hit a perfect wedge into a green, only to hit the pin dead center and bounce backward off the front of the green. That’s golf. And I dealt. But why is it so hard to get the perspective that a good drive in the fairway does not deserve an almost unplayable lie?

[Sawgrass]

> @Schulzmc said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > I’m one up after 17. My opponent stripes one down the middle, then I hook one 15 yards left of the fairway but into a remarkably good lie. We both hit it on and two putt for pars, so I win.

> >

> > My opponent says it’s hard to see how that is a fair test of skill. Said I should have put my ball in a divot hole in the rough so I would have had to play from the lie I deserved.

> >

> > It’s golf. Deal.

>

> I get that hitting it in the rough produces mixed results. Sometimes you catch a break. Other times you don’t. I love the challenge of putting a ball on the green from a fried egg in the trap. And in the same round I mentioned I hit a perfect wedge into a green, only to hit the pin dead center and bounce backward off the front of the green. That’s golf. And I dealt. But why is it so hard to get the perspective that a good drive in the fairway does not deserve an almost unplayable lie?

 

Look, if I end up in a divot hole in the fairway I'm frustrated too. But I don't "get the perspective" that I "deserve" anything. I accept that golf has some random aspects. Many times they'll hurt me, sometimes they help me, but whichever way it goes I wouldn't want to change it. I love the mix of skill and luck. IMO people who advocate for more "justice" than we already have are asking for the wrong thing.

 

My most frustrating moments come when I hit a cart path on the fly and the ball goes deep into the weeds, much further off course than it could have gotten had the cart path not been there. But I don't advocate for a do-over, or a drop at the cart path, when that unfairness hits.

[Schulzmc]

> @Sawgrass said:

 

> Look, if I end up in a divot hole in the fairway I'm frustrated too. But I don't "get the perspective" that I "deserve" anything. I accept that golf has some random aspects. Many times they'll hurt me, sometimes they help me, but whichever way it goes I wouldn't want to change it. I love the mix of skill and luck. IMO people who advocate for more "justice" than we already have are asking for the wrong thing.

>

> My most frustrating moments come when I hit a cart path on the fly and the ball goes deep into the weeds, much further off course than it could have gotten had the cart path not been there. But I don't advocate for a do-over, or a drop at the cart path, when that unfairness hits.

 

I understand and totally agree that the mix of skill and luck is a big part of what makes the game great. Getting dealt a bad hand and overcoming is a huge part of the game. And this has probably been discussed to death so I'll make one last comment and then leave it at that. The fact is there ARE aspects of the game where we do allow for someone to correct the actions of another player and as a result alleviate a bad break. For example, someone does not repair their divot on the green and it is in the line of my putt. Instead of simply saying "that's golf" I get to repair that divot. But if someone does not fill their divot on the fairway and I end up in it, I am not allowed the same relief. I guess I would just draw the "what is acceptable" line in a different place.

[Argonne69]

One cannot compare the actions allowed on the greens vs. the general area. One can mark, lift, and clean their ball on the putting surface. I guess some folks will be wanting to do that in the general area next.

[sui generis]

> @Schulzmc said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

>

> > Look, if I end up in a divot hole in the fairway I'm frustrated too. But I don't "get the perspective" that I "deserve" anything. I accept that golf has some random aspects. Many times they'll hurt me, sometimes they help me, but whichever way it goes I wouldn't want to change it. I love the mix of skill and luck. IMO people who advocate for more "justice" than we already have are asking for the wrong thing.

> >

> > My most frustrating moments come when I hit a cart path on the fly and the ball goes deep into the weeds, much further off course than it could have gotten had the cart path not been there. But I don't advocate for a do-over, or a drop at the cart path, when that unfairness hits.

>

> I understand and totally agree that the mix of skill and luck is a big part of what makes the game great. Getting dealt a bad hand and overcoming is a huge part of the game. And this has probably been discussed to death so I'll make one last comment and then leave it at that. The fact is there ARE aspects of the game where we do allow for someone to correct the actions of another player and as a result alleviate a bad break. For example, someone does not repair their divot on the green and it is in the line of my putt. Instead of simply saying "that's golf" I get to repair that divot. But if someone does not fill their divot on the fairway and I end up in it, I am not allowed the same relief. I guess I would just draw the "what is acceptable" line in a different place.

 

Each of the five defined areas that make up the course have their own privileges and restrictions . . . for good reason

[HatsForBats]

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @Schulzmc said:

> > > @Sawgrass said:

> > > I’m one up after 17. My opponent stripes one down the middle, then I hook one 15 yards left of the fairway but into a remarkably good lie. We both hit it on and two putt for pars, so I win.

> > >

> > > My opponent says it’s hard to see how that is a fair test of skill. Said I should have put my ball in a divot hole in the rough so I would have had to play from the lie I deserved.

> > >

> > > It’s golf. Deal.

> >

> > I get that hitting it in the rough produces mixed results. Sometimes you catch a break. Other times you don’t. I love the challenge of putting a ball on the green from a fried egg in the trap. And in the same round I mentioned I hit a perfect wedge into a green, only to hit the pin dead center and bounce backward off the front of the green. That’s golf. And I dealt. But why is it so hard to get the perspective that a good drive in the fairway does not deserve an almost unplayable lie?

>

> Look, if I end up in a divot hole in the fairway I'm frustrated too. But I don't "get the perspective" that I "deserve" anything. I accept that golf has some random aspects. Many times they'll hurt me, sometimes they help me, but whichever way it goes I wouldn't want to change it. I love the mix of skill and luck. IMO people who advocate for more "justice" than we already have are asking for the wrong thing.

>

> My most frustrating moments come when I hit a cart path on the fly and the ball goes deep into the weeds, much further off course than it could have gotten had the cart path not been there. But I don't advocate for a do-over, or a drop at the cart path, when that unfairness hits.

 

I don't understand. Why are you frustrated by being in a divot hole in the fairway if you truly feel you don't 'deserve' anything and love the mix of skill and luck? How would you feel if players could not fix divots on the green? Would landing in a divot on the green or having one in your path to the hole be frustrating and would you think you deserved better?

[nsxguy]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @nsxguy said:

> > > @HatsForBats said:

> > >

> > > Let me simplify it so even you **might** understand. What percent is 3 divots divided by 40 rounds?

> >

> > 5,329 ?

> >

> > I don't believe I addressed the coin question to you but, if you want me to answer your question, even though somebody already did the math, why don't you answer mine first ?

> >

> > And BTW, I see divots in the rough as well. In fact, even more in the rough because guys fill their divots in the fairway - but the rough ? Not so much.

> >

> > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > 40 rounds x 18 holes/round = 720 holes. Lets say there are 4 par3 per round so 720 - 160 = 560 fairway chances.

> > > >

> > > > 3 divot shots/560 = .00535 So 0.5% chance so far for hatsforbats. So like 1 out of 200...That's pretty close to almost never, imo.

> > >

> > > **You do realize that is a 7.5% chance per round.**.. right? So that would be about 34 Million times per year in the USA (450 Million'ish rounds per year). Your definition of 'almost never' is much, much different than mine. For the record I don't think the chance is anywhere near that great (7.5% per round). Just pointing out the flaw in your idea of 'almost never'.

> > >

> > > Even if it were only 3.4 million times per year in the USA that is very significant IMO.

> >

> > See above. YOU suggested it was a 7.5% chance per round.

> >

> > Still sticking with that ? LMAO

>

> 3 divots in 40 rounds is 7.5%. If you don't understand the math on that I don't know what to tell you. If you think I suggested that is the actual chance of any player landing in a divot during any round then I don't what to tell you there either. I was merely pointing out that what the other poster labelled as an insignificant amount when breaking it down per fairway was actually significant in the context of a single round.

 

Odds of an event happening are calculated "per opportunity".

 

If you don't understand the possibility of you landing in a divot on any ONE shot is approximately 1 out of 180, by your own stats, I don't know what to tell you.

 

So what is the chance for that coin coming up heads for the 6th flip again ? Right, as usual, crickets.

[HitEmTrue]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > 3 divots in 40 rounds is 7.5%. If you don't understand the math on that I don't know what to tell you. If you think I suggested that is the actual chance of any player landing in a divot during any round then I don't what to tell you there either. I was merely pointing out that what the other poster labelled as an insignificant amount when breaking it down per fairway was actually significant in the context of a single round.

>

> Odds of an event happening are calculated "per opportunity".

>

> If you don't understand the possibility of you landing in a divot on any ONE shot is approximately 1 out of 180, by your own stats, I don't know what to tell you.

>

> So what is the chance for that coin coming up heads for the 6th flip again ? Right, as usual, crickets.

 

I don't think Hats ever gave any stats on a per shot basis. If the only information available is total number of rounds, and number of rounds landing in a divot, that is a perfectly valid way of estimating the odds (in my opinion, of course) of landing in a divot in a round. But, the sample size would need to be much larger than 40 rounds to be meaningful.

 

[HatsForBats]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > >

> > > > Let me simplify it so even you **might** understand. What percent is 3 divots divided by 40 rounds?

> > >

> > > 5,329 ?

> > >

> > > I don't believe I addressed the coin question to you but, if you want me to answer your question, even though somebody already did the math, why don't you answer mine first ?

> > >

> > > And BTW, I see divots in the rough as well. In fact, even more in the rough because guys fill their divots in the fairway - but the rough ? Not so much.

> > >

> > > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > 40 rounds x 18 holes/round = 720 holes. Lets say there are 4 par3 per round so 720 - 160 = 560 fairway chances.

> > > > >

> > > > > 3 divot shots/560 = .00535 So 0.5% chance so far for hatsforbats. So like 1 out of 200...That's pretty close to almost never, imo.

> > > >

> > > > **You do realize that is a 7.5% chance per round.**.. right? So that would be about 34 Million times per year in the USA (450 Million'ish rounds per year). Your definition of 'almost never' is much, much different than mine. For the record I don't think the chance is anywhere near that great (7.5% per round). Just pointing out the flaw in your idea of 'almost never'.

> > > >

> > > > Even if it were only 3.4 million times per year in the USA that is very significant IMO.

> > >

> > > See above. YOU suggested it was a 7.5% chance per round.

> > >

> > > Still sticking with that ? LMAO

> >

> > 3 divots in 40 rounds is 7.5%. If you don't understand the math on that I don't know what to tell you. If you think I suggested that is the actual chance of any player landing in a divot during any round then I don't what to tell you there either. I was merely pointing out that what the other poster labelled as an insignificant amount when breaking it down per fairway was actually significant in the context of a single round.

>

> Odds of an event happening are calculated "per opportunity".

>

> If you don't understand the possibility of you landing in a divot on any ONE shot is approximately 1 out of 180, by your own stats, I don't know what to tell you.

>

> So what is the chance for that coin coming up heads for the 6th flip again ? Right, as usual, crickets.

 

What? Where did I disagree with Vindog's math in his post #87? I didn't disagree that it was 3 in 560, or 1 in 186.6666667. I disagreed that it was 'close to never' because taken on a per round basis that represented a 7.5% chance. If you want to break it down to a per hole basis, a per round basis (like I originally posted) or your 1 in 180 reference they all work out the same on a per round basis. 7.5% chance.

 

I didn't look at your coin question but I doubt I have to. The chance for any 2 sided coin flip would be expected to be 50% for either side. My guess is it would actually slightly favor one side over another given the structure of the coin being flipped. Either way the odds would not change no matter how many times in a row it had come up one side or the other.

[HatsForBats]

> @HitEmTrue said:

> > @nsxguy said:

> > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > 3 divots in 40 rounds is 7.5%. If you don't understand the math on that I don't know what to tell you. If you think I suggested that is the actual chance of any player landing in a divot during any round then I don't what to tell you there either. I was merely pointing out that what the other poster labelled as an insignificant amount when breaking it down per fairway was actually significant in the context of a single round.

> >

> > Odds of an event happening are calculated "per opportunity".

> >

> > If you don't understand the possibility of you landing in a divot on any ONE shot is approximately 1 out of 180, by your own stats, I don't know what to tell you.

> >

> > So what is the chance for that coin coming up heads for the 6th flip again ? Right, as usual, crickets.

>

> I don't think Hats ever gave any stats on a per shot basis. If the only information available is total number of rounds, and number of rounds landing in a divot, that is a perfectly valid way of estimating the odds (in my opinion, of course) of landing in a divot in a round. But, the sample size would need to be much larger than 40 rounds to be meaningful.

>

 

Correct, Vindog broke my post of 3 in 40'ish rounds down to a per hole basis. In the quote that NSXGal quoted in #135 I even said ' For the record I don't think the chance is anywhere near that great (7.5% per round). Just pointing out the flaw in your (Vindog's) idea of 'almost never'.