HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cmhaar@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Chris Haar)
Subject: Rules: Ground Under Repair
Followup-To: rec.sport.golf
Organization: Chemistry/Northwestern Uni
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 19:18:41 GMT

My approach shot to the green went long and landed on the far side;
however, the greenskeepers were doing some minor construction where my ball
landed, i.e., ground under repair.

My question: Where do I seek relief?  If my ball lands in ground under
repair, I am allowed to seek relief anywhere along the original path of
flight of the ball as long as the ball is moved no closer to the hole,
correct?  But since my ball went over the green, I had a choice between
moving it closer to the hole or out into some really nasty undergrowth,
which is unfair because had the ground not been under repair, I would have
had a good lie in short grass. This situation was not addressed in the
local course rules, and I'm curious how USGA rules apply.

Thanks in advance,
cmh
Newsgroups: rec.sport.golf
From: koenig@convex.com (Mark Koenig)
Subject: Re: Average hitting distances continued
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:22:50 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

hannegan@hyperion.gsfc.nasa.gov (Bryan Hannegan) writes:
>Hmmmm.... I hit the ball extremely well, yet can't seem to shake my handicap
>below a fifteen or so. Played very competitively in high school, but went 
>downhill from there. Can any one help with a few hints?

>.....stuff deleted...

>Average about 3-4 greens per nine, about 34-36 putts for 18.
>Low round: 76 Hardly ever over 100 (once or twice in my life)

3-4 greens per nine, 34-36 putts...problems solved, you need to practice
chipping and putting.  If you miss the green, you are not chipping close
enough and then making the putt, OR you are chipping well, but then you
miss the putt.  After you get your chipping/putting fixed, work on better
target orientation to the green.

Free O'charge,
Mark
--
Mark Koenig, Optimization Specialist
Convex Computer Corporation         koenig@convex.com
P.O. Box 833851  M.S. SAL           Phone: (214) 497-4298
Richardson, Texas  75083-3851       FAX:   (214) 497-4550
Newsgroups: rec.sport.golf
From: dank@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Daniel Kruczek)
Subject: distances
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 23:27:45 GMT

	If we're still posting distances I'll be glad to give mine, although    I don't know if they'll help anyone.

PW  --  120 & under
9I  --  135 - 120
8I  --  150 - 135
7I  --  160 - 150
6I  --  170 - 160
5I  --  185 - 170
4I  --  200 - 185
3I  --  215 - 200
1I  --  230 - 215  (if I hit it)
Woods:  I leave them in my garage.  Anytime I try to hit them they go insanely
        right.  I think it's a problem with swinging TOO fast, but I'm open to
        suggestions.


            -- Shoot pars and the birdies will come.
                                -- Brant Gibler

Newsgroups: rec.sport.golf
From: tope@enea.se (Tommy Petersson)
Subject: Re: YAGR (ball in tree)
Organization: Enea Data AB
Distribution: rec
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 12:35:29 GMT

john@sequent.com (John Vander Borght) writes:
- ilh@lcs.mit.edu (Lee Hetherington) writes:
- 
- >Anybody know what happens if your ball stops in a tree?  Do you treat
- >is an an unplayable lie?  Can you shake the tree?
- 
- If you can identify the ball, you can declare it unplayable.  If you can't
- find it or you see a ball, but can't identify it, it is lost and you have
- to play it as a lost ball.
- 
- >I seem to remember something in the US Open at Pebble Beach with Faldo
- >shaking or climbing a tree to get his ball.  I never found out how it
- >all worked out.
- 
- He never found the ball and had to go back and play another under penalty
- of stroke and distance.  He made a triple-bogey on the hole.
- 

Olazabal had the same situation on the European Tour. However, saying that
he was completely sure the ball stopped in the three and being backed by
several people, he just got an unplayable lie!

The officials later accnowledged their mistake, but Olazabal's score
wasn't changed. Even the TV commentators knew better and gasped when they
heard about the "unplayable lie" decision...

-- 
=============================================================================
 Tommy Petersson              tope@enea.se              Enea Data AB, Sweden
=============================================================================
From: cs@met.ed.ac.uk (C Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.golf
Subject: Re: Donna Andrews Penalty (Was: Pulling Flagstick)
Date: 27 Jul 92 15:32:04 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University Computing Service


|> In article <1992Jul25.145924.2831@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov> sheldon@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov (Roger Sheldon - AISS) writes:
|> >
|> >And how about this girl in the US Women's Open who got cheated
|> >out of a stroke by a stupid, unfair rule.  I don't know her
|> >name, but she mistakenly tapped the ball while setting up
|> >her putt -- she, of course, took the one stroke penalty.
|> >But after finishing the round, the officials slapped her
|> >with a second penalty stroke for not replacing the ball
|> >to where it was before she accidentally hit it.
|> >
|> >That's totally unfair.  What possible advantage could there
|> >be to leaving the ball where she accidentally hit it?  She
|> >already got penalized one stroke.
|> 
|> Well, the problem was is that she didn't mean to hit the ball.  By definition,
  .....

	The one thing that really annoys me about golf is the
inflexibility of the rules and the sad old gits who get endlessly
worked up about them. 
	Anyone with two brain cells to rub together would realise
that a two stroke penalty for this sort of thing is way off the
mark.	You'd get the same penalty if you'd taken a big swipe at it
and sent the ball out of bounds.
	The fact that a rule is put in the book to stop some form 
of cheating shouldnt mean that it has to be applied when that 
wasnt the intention and no advantage gained.  Especially in a big
competition where there are plenty of officials available to give 
an unbiased interpretation.
	Who'd want to be an official?  Unfortunately far too many
folk.
	Is golf the only sport littered with daft rules?

----------------------
 Campbell Smith      
 remote sensing
 edinburgh university
 cs@uk.ac.ed.met
From: zdepski@zodiac.rutgers.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.golf
Subject: balls and slices
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:58:04 GMT
Organization: Rutgers University Computing Services

I have a question that I have asked some golfing friends, but
have never gotten a satisfactory answer - so I would like some
opinions from the net.

My question is if I am crazy to think that different ball types are
affected significantly differently by a bad swing.  My question is
of course motivated by my own swing deficientancy, an outside-in
swing path. (Only the worst swing in golf, since both pulls left
and slices right are a real possiblity! How do you compensate for that
one?)  Since I was tired of giving up so many strokes chipping out of
the trees, I tried several ball types to see if I had less trouble
with some than with others.  My unscientific experiment resulted in
me playing low-trajectory XL-II's instead of a high trajectory ball
(say, an XL Plus).  My argument to support this choice is this.  A
golf ball has three forces acting on it, gravity, forward force at impact,
and rotational force at impact.  The last one, in conjunction with the
dimple pattern give the "lift".  My theory is that with some side-spin,
a low-trajectory ball moves less in the horizontal direction than a 
high-trajectory ball.  After all, there response to back-spin is
noticeably different.   Furthermore, lift is countered by gravity, but
horizontal "lift" is checked only by air-resistance.

Does anyone know of any test results that would substantiate or refute
this decidely heuristic theory?  Has anyone else selected a ball for similar
reasons?

An engi-nerd wants to know.


"FORE RIGHT"


joel zdepski
Newsgroups: rec.sport.golf
From: tope@enea.se (Tommy Petersson)
Subject: Re: YAGR (yet another golf ruling)
Organization: Enea Data AB
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 12:10:16 GMT

ilh@lcs.mit.edu (Lee Hetherington) writes:
- 
- [I didn't think it was reasonable that you were at the mercy of devious
-  little creatures snatching up your ball at will and depositing you in
-  nasty places like out-of-bounds or in a water hazard.]
- --

After having been to Universial Studios on my holiday, and seen the
trained animals there, I beleive golf could otherwise evolve (degenerate)
to a battle between the player's hawks attacking each others balls (golf
balls) :-)

-- 
=============================================================================
 Tommy Petersson              tope@enea.se              Enea Data AB, Sweden
=============================================================================

Newsgroups: rec.sport.golf
From: john@sequent.com (John Vander Borght)
Subject: Re: ABC Mud mouths (was Re: TV coverage )
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: sqnt
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 18:42:02 GMT

cgp@Arco.COM (Chris Phillips  (214) 754-6419) writes:

>In article <colinm.711809243@cunews> colinm@max.carleton.ca (Colin McFadyen) writes:
>>  ABC should be banned from covering ANY golf tournament.
>>
>>  Let's get McCord and crew over the Atlantic next time.  More experience,
>>better coverage and more fun to watch.

But, CBS should get rid of Ken Venturi, he just doesn't understand today's
game.

>While I don't want to get into who has the best announcers (I
>can usually tell what's going on just by looking at my TV), I
>will add that I prefer to *watch* ABC's coverage.  Think about it:

>	1) ABC telecasts more hours of play so you see basically
>	   the leaders' entire rounds.
>	2) ABC gives 18-hole coverage so you see the whole course
>	   (and yes one reason I watch is to see the great courses).

I'd agree with both of these two reasons.  But, that is really only true of
the majors.  For other events, they tend to offer about the same amount of
coverage and have even been tape-delaying it here so that they can edit out
parts of playoffs etc to keep under time constraints.

If you saw the Tournament of Champions this year, you might remember this.

>Another difference is that ABC favors a foot-soldier, stay-with-the-leaders
>approach while CBS's is more of a back-nine, more-faces approach.

But they are so bad.  Bob Rosburg has never seen an easy shot, everything
is "He's got an impossible lie, there Brent", then the player hits it within a
foot.  Plus he doesn't seem to be able to keep in touch with a lot that is
going on.  Mark Rolfing seems better, but still can't get a feel for what
is going on around the course.  In addition, the announcers in the booth
are lost when they show a hole that doesn't have a roving reporter on it.
At least CBS's team has a few holes assigned to each of them and they
understand those holes (when they are covering more than 4.)

If you saw Faldo get angry with someone during the telecast on Sunday (a few
holes before he started to self-destruct), it was Rosburg that he was talking
too.  You could hear Rosburg say "I wasn't saying anything" over the microphone.

>I also think that the latter approach results in showing more
>putts I'd rather not see, although this is a minor factor.

>Someday I'd like to see what the front nine of the Augusta National
>looks like...

Did you watch this year?  They showed a number of holes on the front nine
(from about #5 on as I recall.)  I distinctly remember watching Couples
play #8 and they had been showing him for a while before that.  Also, that
wasn't CBS's desire, that was Clifford Roberts' decision.

Also, I'd like to know why the players take such different strides on the
green.  One time a player will have a "5-foot" putt and take 4 steps to get
to the hole and another he'll have a "20-footer" and get there in 3
steps.

John Vander Borght
john@sequent.com
-- 
"Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty!"
John Vander Borght
john@sequent.com
From: fragante@unixg.ubc.ca (Gv Fragante)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.golf
Subject: Re: LIghtweight steel sha
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:42:21 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada

In <1992Jul23.042524.26177@rose.com> bohdan.kiszczuk@rose.com (bohdan kiszczuk) writes:

>        Callaway uses TT extralites in their regular woods. They are 
>significantly lighter than Dynamic Golds ( > 20 grams). Your clubs 
>would certainly be lighter. The problem is the swingweight would also 
>be lower unless you add weight to the heads with tape, lead down the 
>shaft etc. You didn't mention which forged clubs your talking about ?

TT-extralites ? Or is that just TT-lites ? I have not seen the extralites in
the Golfsmith and Golfworks catalog. Sometimes, club manufacturers can use a
shaft that is (purportedly) specially designed for the club as in the MS-209
shaft for the Titleist DCI. My friend said that the MS-209 is actually a plain
vanilla True Temper Dynamic (not Gold).

Anyway, about the potential change in swingweight, I don't mind adding lead
tapes to the head. The forged clubs I am using are the Titleist Tour model
(2-3 years old successor to the square-toe blade). I am aware that Titleist
blades are heavier than most other blades (i.e. Wilson, Maxfli, Ram). What
lightweight shaft would you recommend ?

>        The difference in prices for steel shafts is insignificant so 
>go for the best.  

Well, the dynamic gold plus is double the price of the TT-lites. This
difference is further magnified when done by a shop. I don't intend to do it
myself as I don't want to try ruin a good set.
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.golf
Subject: Re: What's a flyer lie?
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:43:42 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona

In article <1992Jul23.152210.25522@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov> sheldon@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov (Roger Sheldon - AISS) writes:
>On TV, they're always talking about how a ball will fly out of the rough.
>Anyone know the reason?  It seams that rough should always decrease the
>flight of the ball.

A "flier" lie is one where your ball is mostly below the level of
the tops of the grass, and you're hitting against the grain.

This causes the ball to pop up instead of taking
off at the correct angle.

				--Blair
				  "Be the ball."
Newsgroups: rec.sport.golf
From: sercely@convex.com (Ron Sercely)
Subject: Re: YARQ (Yet Another Rules Question)
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:47:08 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1992Jul23.142832.2919@rtsg.mot.com> merklin@rtsg.mot.com (Teresa B. Merklin) writes:
>
>Yet Another Rules Question:
>
>The other day in our company league, there was a rank beginner in our 
>foursome. On the first hole I reached the green before he did, and marked
>my ball before he escaped a large greenside bunker. As fate would have it,
>his ball ended up very close to mine about a foot farther out from the 
>pin. 
>
>While he was lining up his putt, and before any of us could stop him, he said
>"Look somebody left a dime", took my mark and pocketed it.
>
>After that, my playing partner teased me about charging me a penalty stroke
>since my mark was interfered with. The playing partner of the guy who took
>my mark also teased him about penalty strokes.
>
>We just chalked it up to one of those things that happens, and didn't charge
>any penalty to anyone.
>
>What is the correct ruling?
>
>Teresa
>-- 
>/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>// Teresa Barley Merklin                    / Internet: tmerklin@mot.com   //
>// Fort Worth Research & Development Center / Voice:    (817) 232-6565     //
>// Motorola, Inc.                           / Fax:      (817) 232-6081     //

As usual, the answer is, it depends.

First, I will assume that the player indeed did this out of ignorance, so that
the movement can be considered accidental.  If it was on purpose, I believe
some general penalty could be enforced. (under rule 1-4, equity)

Also, I don't see a specific decision on this, so the following is merely my
educated (?) guess.

If you were playing a stroke play event, where everyone playing in the league
that night is competing, that makes the person that lifted the marker an
outside agency.  There is no penalty ON ANYONE.  Replace you ball as near as 
possible and proceed.
(Decision 20-1/9 states that a ball-marker lifted by an outside agency is
replaced, no penalites)

If you were playing a match against the other team, the player moving the
marker would be subject to a 1 stroke penalty.
(Decision 20-1/7 states that if an opponents caddie accidentaly moved the
marker, the player incurs a penalty stroke)

Can anyone find a more specific ruling, or phrase in the rule book?

Ron Sercely
Newsgroups: rec.sport.golf
From: pgdmills@atlas.cs.upei.ca (Deryck Mills)
Subject: Re: What are these slope ratings?
Organization: University of Prince Edward Island
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 12:53:04 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.235438.5459@trl.oz.au> thompson@titan.trl.OZ.AU (David Thompson) writes:
>mjb@mulka.ph.unimelb.edu.au (Michael Beeching) writes:
>
>
>>	Well I'm not exactly new at the sport of golf, but I have
>>never before heard of slope ratings for courses. If you haven't
>>already noticed I'm from Australia (please no jokes about being
>>behind the times etc...) so are slope ratings a relativly new
>>concept or have they been around a while? Are they used in most
>>countries or just the States? (from memory I've only seen them
>>mentioned for USA courses) How are they calculated? Any info
>>would be appreciated
>

In Canada we are presently getting setup to use the slope rating system,

probably go into effect in the next couple of years (all courses have to
be rated across the country).

-- 
===============================================================================
Bourque crosses the blue line, He shoots, He ......|  Deryck Mills
Nicklaus with another hole in ...                  |  pgdmills@cs.upei.ca
I'd rather be golfing.                             |  DEM Computing
From: tope@enea.se (Tommy Petersson)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.golf
Subject: Re: Donna Andrews Penalty (Was: Pulling Flagstick)
Date: 29 Jul 92 11:36:33 GMT
Organization: Enea Data AB

tosca@csadfa.cs.adfa.oz.au (Crispin Russell) writes:
- From article <1992Jul28.123058.28039@enea.se>, by tope@enea.se (Tommy Petersson):
- > - 
- > 
- 
- (*** stuff deleted ***)
- 
- > This is similar to another situation:
- > 
- > You have a bad lie in the rough under a tree. You try to hit the ball
- > to the fairway, but misses it entirely and only manages to cut of a
- > branch of the tree. Should this count as one or two strokes? (if you
- > don't try to hit the ball, but only makes a practice swing, it will
- > cost you two strokes for cutting the branch)
- > 
- > -- 
- > =============================================================================
- >  Tommy Petersson              tope@enea.se              Enea Data AB, Sweden
- > =============================================================================
- 
- Hold on!  Did I miss something there?  I admit to not knowing the rules as 
- well as I would like, but thats one I've never heard of.  How does one acrue
- a two stroke penalty for defacing a tree (however unintentionally)?  What other
- obstacles does this apply to and where?
- 
- Tosca
- -- 
-   Crispin Russell (Sys.Prog.)         #  AARNET   : tosca@cs.adfa.oz.au
-   Department of Comp.Sci.             #  telephone: +61 6 268 8155
-   Australian Defence Force Academy.   #  facsimile: +61 6 268 8151.
-   Campbell ACT 2600, AUSTRALIA        #

This is not for cruelty againt the tree... If you make a practice swing
and thereby improve either your lie or clearing up your swing path (by
swinging close to the ball in high rough, cutting the grass, or cutting
a branch from a tree thats hindering your swing), you get a two stroke
penalty. I've even seen that happen this spring on the European Tour.

The question is: If it wasn't a practice swing, would you just count
the one (attempted) stroke, would it cost you two strokes, or even three
(one for the stroke + plus two strokes penalty)?

This is not a quiz (I don't have the answer)

-- 
=============================================================================
 Tommy Petersson              tope@enea.se              Enea Data AB, Sweden
=============================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.sport.golf
From: sercely@convex.com (Ron Sercely)
Subject: Re: Question on pulling the flagstick w/ ball holed.
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:41:31 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <Jul23.195119.32191@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> wayman@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Jeffrey Wayman) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.041547.25217@colorado.edu> cdash@moet.cs.colorado.edu (Charles Shub) writes:
>>There has been a bit of confusion about balls resting against
>>flagsticks.  Let's try and clear it up.
>>
>>Once a ball is holed, the play of the hole is over and nothing one
>>does after that makes a difference.  This is supported by several
>>decisions, including 1-1/2, 1-1/3, 1-1/4, and 2-4/11.
>>
>I got nailed bad on this by a guy on the rules committee for the state
>of Wisconsin.  The situation:  On a par 3, a player seemingly bounces
>one over green into OB.  He tees up another, and when the flag is pulled
>to put, his original ball was found to have holed.  What's the ruling?
>
>I thought he was playing his 4th shot, because he intended his 2nd 
>ball to be in play, not being a provisional.  The quote from the earlier
>post shows how wrong I was!!  Great rules question.
>
>Jeff              wayman@lamar.colostate.edu


Seems like we discussed this one at lenght a couple of months.  I believe the
conclusion is that the person scored a 1.

Also, as a practicing rules official, I feel compelled to note that rules
officials do occaisionly make incorrect rulings on the course!  You cannot be
penalized for following the official "ruling".  However, if you believe the
ruling is in error, by all means, play a second ball (if in a stroke play
format) and submit the incident to  the committee! (when playing a second ball,
remember to always declare which ball you wish to score with).

Ron Sercely
Newsgroups: rec.sport.golf