betarhoalphadelta

I know this wasn't what was asked... But remove one variable from the three scenarios. In each of these cases, the ball is not replaced but is played from its new location (even if that new location is 1 mm away). Now it's an additional 1PS for playing from the wrong place, right? I.e. the Lowry issue at The Open where he inadvertently moved his ball a few dimples with his practice stroke, didn't realize it had moved and thus didn't replace it, so it was 1PS for moving it and 1PS for playing it from there without replacing it. Is that correct?

Rule 1.2a. Pretty sure any referee would disqualify you for serious misconduct for trying to pull a stunt like this. Although you're probably going to lose the hole even if you're not DQ'd, because I'm hitting 2 out of a divot, and you're now laying 3 / hitting 4 from 30 yards in front of me. I could take an unplayable and I'd still only be hitting 3 from a nice fairway lie.

Yeah, it often seems--particularly on approach shots, that the camera is slightly to the right of the [right-handed] player. This makes the start line appear to be WAY right when it's not. And that also can make the curve on the tracer look more or less pronounced on tee shots depending on where the camera is and where the player puts a peg in the ground. And you can end up with tracer curves that look like the ball turned both ways, like this one: I.e. it looks like it a very pronounced draw to start, but then straightens out or fades back. But if the camera had been directly behind the player, it would look like only a draw. Given that this is the instructional thread, it's yet another reason that the instructors on this forum are such sticklers for filming your swing from the correct camera angles. Because being off only a little bit can drastically change what you see.

Well, obviously. But the LIV shills a couple of years ago were throwing around those numbers. Realistically if you look at the expenses, the "team" prize (which goes to the team owner rather than the individual purse which goes to the golfer), there's not a good ROI on buying a LIV team for any large sum of money. What I'm arguing is that if your hands are tied on who you can or can't actually have on your team, though, it makes it even worse. And that's what you have if it's a defined and iron-clad promotion/relegation system. To put it in terms @Mr.Cleeks would appreciate, it would be like having a team who really loved Rickie Fowler because he's a fan favorite and sells a lot of merch, and being told by LIV that they couldn't keep him because his on-course performance forced him into relegation. Once your criteria for inclusion/exclusion are based on things other than objective performance-related criteria, the OWGR starts asking how they can appropriately value your players.

But how? The goal of LIV is to have teams. Teams have owners. Owners aren't going to be very happy about being told that they don't get to select which players are on their teams. There's no formal team alignment structure, but many in this thread have suggested that teams would/could/should be driven by things like equipment sponsors, or aligned to nationality. I.e. maybe you'd have "Team Ping vs Team Titleist", or you'd have "Team Spain vs Team South Africa". That doesn't work if you align teams via a draft... And it doesn't work if you are forcing promotion/relegation and the team owners don't want the players who are being promoted or want to keep the players relegated. Who is going to spend $1B for a LIV team when they don't know that they can 100% control who is or isn't on their team? The structure is unworkable.

Eh. I seem to remember similar things during the Tiger era. If Tiger had a strong lead into Sunday, it just seemed inevitable that he'd win. It often had the same anticlimactic feeling as Scottie. I don't hate Scottie for this now, just as I didn't hate Tiger for this then. It's just a reflection of how damn good both of them are[/were], that you just *know* they're not going to collapse.

I had planned to brew a batch of beer yesterday. As is typical, I was procrastinating and watching golf--I'm US West Coast so it was still fairly early in the morning. Eventually I got bored watching Scottie just decimate the field that I set it up to record, went out to the garage, and did my brew day. After I was done, I went to go watch the end. Normally my wife knows not to tell me spoilers for a sporting event that's time-shifted, but I told her "I'm going to watch the end even though I know Scottie won. I mean, I don't actually have any third-party information telling me that he won. But I know he won." I like Scottie, but him with a commanding lead going into a Sunday is a bit anticlimactic. By the time he recovered from his double with that birdie on 10, and none of the chasers seeming to be going low, I knew it was over.

Page 143... That's the 2025 handbook BTW. Similar/identical language to what I remember from a couple years ago when it was discussed in these LIV threads. So basically anything that's not wholly instructional, which one would think would be the case of most golf-related programming on YouTube (with the exception of things like Paddy's Golf Tips), require the PGA Tour's written consent. The PGA Tour may not in all cases require the player to pay a "right's fee" to get said consent, but as we know with The Match if Phil is to be believed, it's a right they've exercised in the past.

Are you gents color blind by any chance? I have a pretty bad protanomaly, which is known commonly as "red-green colorblind". Which for me means I could lose a red ball... On the green. I have one buddy who often will play a matte red supersoft, and I have walked within a foot of it in the fairway and not even realized it was there... As for OP, I personally find yellow to be the easiest to see. I've also found it really easy to see either white or yellow Callaway with the TruVis patterns, but I don't play them personally.

Distance industrial complex? If so, while I don't agree with you on the rollback, kudos from me for a brilliant turn of phrase 😉

Can't believe they just showed the replay three times where Rory is saying to himself, after an eagle putt left 6" short, "Hit the ******* ball." I mean, you don't have to be an expert lip reader to make that one out...

Or you could just use MLR E-5. That's literally what it was created for; to allow you to avoid going back to the last played spot (S&D) in the case of OOB or lost ball. Red staking everything is just trying to avoid the additional penalty stroke that MLR E-5 uses to mimic the effects of an S&D penalty.

I'm not sure who it is (I think either Nels or Erky), but there is a poster here who commonly makes the statement that one of the biggest differences is that adult men have the physical strength to get away with things that juniors and women do not... And I think that many (incl. Monte) have made the statement that this is one of the problems that many men face when they start to approach "senior" years as they lose the strength they needed to get away with bad moves previously. Thus, juniors and women are forced to organize their swing in a more efficient manner because they don't have the strength to "save" a bad swing. To me it's quite a plausible argument. I can tell just looking at my swing on video that due to my issues with takeaway/backswing, I have to fight the club steepening in transition. It *does* steepen, but I have the strength to reroute it back on plane and still come in and hit the ball from the inside. I'm trying to fix it, partly because all that compensation just makes me inconsistent, but also the fact that at age 46 I'm starting to at least approach the age range where my body can no longer get away with it.