What is the one rule you wish could be changed

[Sawgrass]

I promote 5 as an official number, in honor of the Gentlemen Golfers of Leith and Leith Links' five holes, and most certainly the March 7, 1744 rules developed there.

 

(I'm sure Colin will agree.)

[Mr. Bean]

Interesting. With 3 clubs you get more drives on the fairway using what? Maybe you should give your driver a rest and use a club you have more confidence with and with which you find the fairway more often.

Golf is a tactical game but it should not be THAT tactical...

[rogolf]

I find that leaving my driver in the trunk (boot) of the car for a few days seems to teach it a lesson; same works for a putter.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

I believe there's some pretty solid science to back that up because it works for my driver as well ?

[Londoner]

Wasn't there a professional who dragged his putter behind his car to teach it a lesson?

[DTG]

FWIW, driver is the absolute last club that I consider avoiding. It has a great big head so is super forgiving, is used off a tee, etc. Now that I am a very casual golfer, I am subject to occasional periods where I simply cannot put the clubhead where I want it to be. In those cases I have learned to hit approach shots with half swings (like maybe hit a 5i where 8i or 9i would be the choice with a full swing) just to create predictable distance control (predictable in the sense that I can kind of count on reasonably solid impact). When in that mode I can remember a couple of times hitting half swing drivers to 150'ish yard par 3's as that seemed my best option (obviously does not work if you cannot run the ball onto the green).

dave

[Sawgrass]

In my three club, I use a putter, pitching wedge and 4 hybrid. And, it's not so much that I keep my tee shot on the fairway with the hybrid, but on the course. And despite this trauma you've learned in this thread that I actually find the S&D penalty a just punishment!

[KevCarter]

LOL

I think that was Ky Lafoon. Great story from Plimpton's The Bogey Man.

[DaveLeeNC]

In the spirit of full disclosure, I was setting up an account for my wife who might become a golfer (maybe - kind of depends on how her recent shoulder surgery and her tennis compulsion get along). I got confused when I posted this and used the wrong ID.

dave

[antip]

Triple bogey.

[antip]

But at least it can be easily consigned to the 'wild driver' department in the garage, next to the 'putters that don't work' department.

Friend LICC seems to have been 'sin-binned' for a while for not playing nice and that is absolutely appropriate IMO. This is a community and we all need to be civilised and get on. If people have different views you make your point, accept that you don't control someone else's view and move on. Repeating one out there view three hundred times is not civilised behaviour, even if that view is benign. And this one was not, it was an unsubtle argument that implied anyone that has ever taken an unplayable lie when it was possible to get club on ball was being dishonest and playing outside the Rules. Despite the clear and simple evidence to the contrary.

If our friend can display more thoughtful self management in the future, I will be happy to debate with him on issues of common interest. If not, he will not be missed.

[DaveLeeNC]

Am I the only guy that saw this? Today I got a routine 'something has been posted to this thread' email notice (just like the 1000)+ others). This particular one came in at 10:53 (EST) this morning and it was from @LICC . Interestingly (and appropriately, I might add) it simply said.
"I am still trying to post. Happy to discuss golf with all you fine folks!"
Did anyone else get this? I was surprised to not see it mentioned.
dave

[rogolf]

Nope. And I'm not missing him and his attitude. FWIW, this thread could easily be closed in favour of threads discussing specific Rules they might want changed (instead of discussing all of them under one thread).

[antip]

You're a glutton for punishment letting those 'routine' notices in.

[DaveLeeNC]

Yep- see the following thread. This thread put me at my limits.https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/1805665/unsubscribe#latest

dave

[Newby]

I don't use that option but I did notice the thread showed that he was the latest poster (didn't notice the time). But when I opened the thread the post wasn't showing.

Shortly after I got a PM from him saying he had attempted to post but it wasn't getting through and saying he had nothing from the moderators and was awaiting a response to his enquiry

He asked me if his PM had got through to me and I replied 'Yes'.

[Hawkeye77]

Got through to you, not the entire forum.

 

Didn't care a bit for anything about the way things were happening, but someone sends you a PM you don't quote it and put it up for all to see like it's 7th grade lunchroom stuff.

 

Classless move, don't care who you got it from.

[Vindog]

If he can't figure out on his own that he's been put into tachy (timeout) then he likely won't learn from it.

 

But I reserve hope.

[Sawgrass]

I applaud your desire to be civil, but I’m having a hard time imagining that Newby’s post wasn’t actually cooperative with LICC’s preference and his general desire to communicate here.

[Newby]

Yes, I simply saw it as an attempt to find out what was happening. He seemingly had no forewarning or subsequent contact from the the moderators. I saw no reason to be churlish.

[Hawkeye77]

I'm sorry, but that is making an assumption that isn't born out by the facts. It was a private message, not a private message with a "please will you share this with the group" and without that blessing (or asking permission and receiving it) a member should never simply quote and share a PM. There is a reason they are called "private" and if that was contained in a rule of golf, Newby would have no trouble coming up with a definition. This isn't one of those situations where your group becomes a committee on the course.

 

I see no reasonable argument on this issue other than PMs are private and there is no exception for "I think he would have wanted me to share that" which only enables the person violating the trust. Pretty basic tenet on this forum.

[Vindog]

Im not seeing a big deal the PM was posted. Certainly not going to allow him to be the victim.

 

I feel bad for him that he allowed one side of his Internet personality to cloud his other useful qualities. But that’s something the he will have to learn. Nobody can learn it for him.

 

 

[Newby]

My experience of PMs here and on other sites is that most PMS are 'private' in the sense they are only relevant to those in the conversation.

If on the very few occasions the poster has requested it not be made public or by the nature of the content, it is 'personal, I wouldn't and don't broadcast.

But sometimes a poster will pass on information relating to a forum discussion which they don't wish to post themselves for some reason. In that case I will relay it at an appropriate time, which may be in another thread.

 

Incidentally, WRX does not appear to label them as Private or Personal. They are simply 'messages'.

[Hawkeye77]

Newby, that is a complete cop out.

 

Did you ask LICC's permission to publish his PM and receive it? Did he otherwise ask you to publish it?

 

If the answers to those questions are "no" there is really no point trying to talk around some justification for posting it.

 

I've said enough.

 

This isn't some situational thing and the answer isn't determined by who you like or don't like, what greater purpose (lol) you think you are serving, etc.

 

Someone wants something public THEY post it. Private is private.

[Mikey5e]

Get over it

;)

[Newby]

This site does not have a 'Private Messages', so it wasn't private

I have no qualms about reporting his problem as he was clearly puzzled. My recollection is that I was not the only recipient but as it was removed very quickly in the early hours of the (ie my) morning, I suspect no one else saw it. As it happens I can not now post the words because the original post and my response have disappeared. But the question was not specific to me but was a general enquiry.

LICC owned the copyright but as he had made no 'disclaimer, arguably I would have the authority to repost. However, I only posted the gist and of course that would be deemed to be 'fair use'.

 

 

[Vindog]

I speak from experience as someone who has been timeout'd.

 

I appreciate your concern though.

[KevCarter]

I've not ever seen someone be timed out or banned and have all their posts removed. I think I've only seen it when one asks to have his account removed...

[deadsolid...shank]

I think in the context of the situation, ie, several prior posts questioning the whereabouts of LICC, and of his posts, passing along what he said in the message was the correct move. It appeared (to my way of reading it anyway) that it was partly an informational message.

 

Normally Hawkeye I would agree with you on this, but in this instance I think it was fine. Also, it was Newby, I think he’s one of the guys who has probably earned a little leeway, as we all know his intentions had no ill intent.

[Newby]

As I don't want to get involved in another LICC marathon, I won't post again on this topic.