| |
Main
Date: 11 Sep 2006 05:21:05
From: S McFarlane
Subject: What's too slow for you?
|
The following got me thinking:
" >Playing from the wrong tees is the main reason for slow play. Does
>struggling all day mean you get your money's worth? This is one issue I
>have with my fellow golfers and makes no sense.
I disagree. The big reasons for slow play are:
1. Too many people on the course.
2. People who are not ready to hit when it's their turn to play.
3. People who move slowly.
Clueless on the green is the most irritating."
I've recently got back into the game after a _long_ absence (~1985!).
Besides the fact that extremely mediocre players can now regularly hit
drives in the > 270 yd range, the biggest change I've seen is the big hurry
on the course. Since I've restarted, I've played a few rounds in about 3
1/2 - 3 3/4 hrs walking the course. By my frame of reference, that's
exceptionally fast. But in the rounds I'm thinking of, I had to let about 4
groups play through, a few not at all friendly due to the 'slow' pace. My
enjoyment of the game and surroundings was definitely lessened by having
some uptight twosome on my tail for most of the round.
What has happened to golf? I can rush about my day at work. I don't really
want to head out to the golf course to do more rushing. Maybe standards for
play have changed since 1985 in other ways than the driving distance of
so-so players. Back then, 18 holes in 4 hrs was good enough. I can't
recall a time when such a pace caused any problems. I can't imagine how
many dirty looks I'd get if I dared to play a 4 hr round these days. Have
the rules been changed in the last 20 years such that score adjustments are
now made based on playing time?
Clueless on the green is IMHO definitely not the most irritating. Clueless
in the whole point of the best game ever definitely is. It's not a race.
So, IMO, the #1 reason for slow play is: People who have unrealistic
expectations as to how fast they can squeeze a round into their busy
schedule. IM further O, people hampered by this fault should really
consider taking up another hobby, something they might enjoy more. The
brokering of stocks and bonds comes to mind.
Scott
|
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2006 10:54:21
From: Thor
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
Aress Gee wrote:
> "Thor" <thorpub@rsgohio.com> writes:
> > Aress Gee wrote:
> > > I played your favorite gorse-covered course twice on Sunday. We
> > > (3 of us) finished the second round in 2:50 because we had to
> > > wait to play our tee shots and approaches on 18.
> >
> > Awesome... how did you like the course?
>
> I think I liked Prestwick better; however, if I had to choose
> one of those two to play (exclusively) for the rest of my life I
> would pick Dornoch as Prestwick is too quirky for a "one course
> for the rest of your life" choice.
Kewl... I sort of felt that way about Crail... though, no it does
not compare to Royal Dornoch!
> When you go back you should make a point of playing Brora
> as well. It's a lot of fun for a 40-pound 'day ticket.'
I think it has been discussed!
> > > I think the first 18 on the big course took about 3:30
> > > and the 18 on The Struie took about that long too.
> > >
> > > I'm glad to read that RSG-OH went well.
> >
> > Join us next year!
>
> I hope to.
Yay!
-- Thor
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2006 06:26:37
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Moving markers was Re: What's too slow for you?
|
cja wrote:
> Slightly off the topic of this thread, but ... I assume you moved the
> k 1 putterhead away, maybe 2, which is what I do, and I think is
> normal. A couple of years ago, on vacation in AZ, I played with a guy
> from yland and his two teenage sons. When his k was in my way, he
> would move it at least one _club_length_ away, as you would do when
> measuring where to take a drop. I had never seen this before, nor have
> I seen it since that day. I thought it was quite bizarre. Evidently,
> he taught his boys this was the way to do it, because they moved ks
> that way too.
I've seen folks do this too. It's fairly rare. It made more sense
when
several of us were on similar lines. But to me it seemed that
if a guy couldn't figure which way his put was going to be going
to within about 8 inches maybe his problem wasn't my ker. Once
I offered to just putt the thing.
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2006 17:03:56
From: Thor
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
Aress Gee wrote:
> "Thor" <thorpub@rsgohio.com> writes:
>
> > This is why gorse is so awesome... you can't go in there to
> > search for it without risking severe bodily harm.
>
> I played your favorite gorse-covered course twice on Sunday. We
> (3 of us) finished the second round in 2:50 because we had to
> wait to play our tee shots and approaches on 18.
Awesome... how did you like the course?
> I think the first 18 on the big course took about 3:30
> and the 18 on The Struie took about that long too.
>
> I'm glad to read that RSG-OH went well.
Join us next year!
|
| | |
Date: 20 Sep 2006 12:29:14
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
"Thor" <thorpub@rsgohio.com > writes:
> Aress Gee wrote:
> > "Thor" <thorpub@rsgohio.com> writes:
> >
> > > This is why gorse is so awesome... you can't go in there to
> > > search for it without risking severe bodily harm.
> >
> > I played your favorite gorse-covered course twice on Sunday. We
> > (3 of us) finished the second round in 2:50 because we had to
> > wait to play our tee shots and approaches on 18.
>
> Awesome... how did you like the course?
I think I liked Prestwick better; however, if I had to choose
one of those two to play (exclusively) for the rest of my life I
would pick Dornoch as Prestwick is too quirky for a "one course
for the rest of your life" choice.
When you go back you should make a point of playing Brora
as well. It's a lot of fun for a 40-pound 'day ticket.'
> > I think the first 18 on the big course took about 3:30
> > and the 18 on The Struie took about that long too.
> >
> > I'm glad to read that RSG-OH went well.
>
> Join us next year!
I hope to.
--
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2006 13:54:14
From: cja
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
Peter Strauss wrote:
> Monday in a tournament, I moved my ballk on a green to get it out
> of another competitor's line of putt.
> [ other stuff snipped ]
>
Slightly off the topic of this thread, but ... I assume you moved the
k 1 putterhead away, maybe 2, which is what I do, and I think is
normal. A couple of years ago, on vacation in AZ, I played with a guy
from yland and his two teenage sons. When his k was in my way, he
would move it at least one _club_length_ away, as you would do when
measuring where to take a drop. I had never seen this before, nor have
I seen it since that day. I thought it was quite bizarre. Evidently,
he taught his boys this was the way to do it, because they moved ks
that way too.
- cja
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 09:14:47
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
Peter Strauss wrote:
[snip]
> Monday in a tournament, I moved my ballk on a green to get it out
> of another competitor's line of putt.
> When I went to replace the ball after his putt, I used the ballk
> right where it was, instead of replacing it.
[snip]
I heard some announcer explaining that Tiger has learned to
flip his ker over when he has to move it. i.e. he always
ks with one particular side up. When he moves it out
of the way he flips it over too. So when he looks down there
is a reminder that he has moved his ker.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 18:35:21
From: Peter Strauss
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
On 15 Sep 2006 09:14:47 -0700, "oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com"
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com > wrote:
> Peter Strauss wrote:
> [snip]
> > Monday in a tournament, I moved my ballk on a green to get it out
> > of another competitor's line of putt.
> > When I went to replace the ball after his putt, I used the ballk
> > right where it was, instead of replacing it.
> [snip]
>
> I heard some announcer explaining that Tiger has learned to
> flip his ker over when he has to move it. i.e. he always
> ks with one particular side up. When he moves it out
> of the way he flips it over too. So when he looks down there
> is a reminder that he has moved his ker.
I guess I should write "Move it back, Stupid!" on one side (assuming I
could remember to put that side up if I in fact moved it.)
Objection: assuming facts not in evidence.
:-)
Thanks for the idea. Hope I remember to implement it.
Peter
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 14:45:27
From: warren montgomery
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
>> I heard some announcer explaining that Tiger has learned to
>> flip his ker over when he has to move it. i.e. he always
>> ks with one particular side up. When he moves it out
>> of the way he flips it over too. So when he looks down there
>> is a reminder that he has moved his ker.
>
> I guess I should write "Move it back, Stupid!" on one side (assuming I
> could remember to put that side up if I in fact moved it.)
> Objection: assuming facts not in evidence.
> :-)
> Thanks for the idea. Hope I remember to implement it.
>
Actually what you probably should do is put an arrow on the back side and
point it in the direction you have to move it back. I've certainly had the
experience of king, moving, then forgetting which way I moved it by the
time I could put it back. It is a really nice idea. Equivalently, can you
use a different k?
--
Warren Montgomery (wamontgomery@att.net)
http://home.att.net/~wamontgomery
"Peter Strauss" <pfs126@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:qgslg2tkji4u0gai4eoqef94hkif7evpaq@4ax.com...
> On 15 Sep 2006 09:14:47 -0700, "oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com"
> <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
>
>> Peter Strauss wrote:
>> [snip]
>> > Monday in a tournament, I moved my ballk on a green to get it out
>> > of another competitor's line of putt.
>> > When I went to replace the ball after his putt, I used the ballk
>> > right where it was, instead of replacing it.
>> [snip]
>>
> Peter
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 21:10:15
From: Peter Strauss
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:45:27 -0500, "warren montgomery"
<wamontgomery@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
> >> I heard some announcer explaining that Tiger has learned to
> >> flip his ker over when he has to move it. i.e. he always
> >> ks with one particular side up. When he moves it out
> >> of the way he flips it over too. So when he looks down there
> >> is a reminder that he has moved his ker.
> >
> > I guess I should write "Move it back, Stupid!" on one side (assuming I
> > could remember to put that side up if I in fact moved it.)
> > Objection: assuming facts not in evidence.
> > :-)
> > Thanks for the idea. Hope I remember to implement it.
> >
> Actually what you probably should do is put an arrow on the back side and
> point it in the direction you have to move it back. I've certainly had the
> experience of king, moving, then forgetting which way I moved it by the
> time I could put it back. It is a really nice idea. Equivalently, can you
> use a different k?
Great idea!
Wait...what's that saying, "It isn't the arrow..."?
Oh.
Never mind.
I'll put an arrow on my ker forthwith.
Uh-oh. Snag.
I use a ker with the peg on the underside so it won't move.
OK, OK, I'll work something out .
Appreciate all the ideas, folks.
Now if only I could remember what we were talking about...
|
| | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 09:56:41
From: long&left
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:
> Peter Strauss wrote:
> [snip]
>> Monday in a tournament, I moved my ballk on a green to get it out
>> of another competitor's line of putt.
>> When I went to replace the ball after his putt, I used the ballk
>> right where it was, instead of replacing it.
> [snip]
>
> I heard some announcer explaining that Tiger has learned to
> flip his ker over when he has to move it. i.e. he always
> ks with one particular side up. When he moves it out
> of the way he flips it over too. So when he looks down there
> is a reminder that he has moved his ker.
>
so, THAT'S why he's #1 in the world?
:)
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 17:33:45
From: pete z
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
fiveiron@webtv.net wrote:
> the reason for slow play can be attributed to the starter and shals,
> they are not managing the pace of starts / play properly.
>
> golfers on the course can be helpful too by staying awake, and
> implementing features that are conducive to faster play.
>
> dub it in for 4, 18 holes - 4.5 hours.
>
> >m h o
> > v =83e
>
> >d w n w / t h e $ c a l p e r - u $ e l e $ $ g a $
>
> >g a s o l i n e - $1.499 / gl.,, i s a f a i r p r i c e
We have no shals at my club. Average round, on a weekend, 3:45 to 4
hrs. This
is mostly due to the 24 to 28 ft. fairways, and 3 inch rough. I don't
care how you k your ball, it is hard to find in 3 to 6 inch rough.
If the rough were cut to 2", the average
round would be down to 3:30. Oh, didn't mention, 75 percent walking.
6600 yd course.
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 07:06:53
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
Shintaro wrote:
> The_Professor wrote:
> > Howard Brazee wrote:
> >
> >>On 11 Sep 2006 13:21:03 -0700, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>#1 reason for slow play is people looking for balls and not letting the
> >>>group behind play through. Let 'em play through, and the caravan keeps
> >>>moving, you just move down a spot...but we can't get that anymore, so
> >>>when groups stop on say 4, 9, 14 and 17 to look for alls, everone
> >>>waits, then someone on 11 has to look for a ball...and the wait goes
> >>>on!
> >>>
> >>>Now an old fella like me can recall the good old glory days of golf
> >>>when people waved the group behind through when they stopped to look
> >>>for a ball...back in the days when people walked...actually played
> >>>golf...
> >>
> >>Letting people play through doesn't work with overcrowded courses.
> >>There isn't any "through" available.
> >
> >
> > So you just hold the who caravan up while you hunt for your ball? If
> > some other group is waiting, you either let them through or don't look
> > for the ball.
> >
> I *think* what he meant is every group on the course is slow. So slow
> that taking 2 minutes to look for your ball makes little or no
> difference if you're faster than the groups in front of you.
If there is no space between you and the group in front, and you hold
everyone behind you up for 2 minutes, it makes the difference of
slowing the round for everyone behind you by 2 minutes. Of course, some
group ahead of you will do the same thing, and you can "catch up", so
it doesn't appear to make any difference, but it adds up. However,
there was a day when you let the group behind play through if you
stopped to look for a ball.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 10:10:55
From: Otto
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message
news:1158156413.414300.268690@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Shintaro wrote:
>> The_Professor wrote:
>> > Howard Brazee wrote:
>> >
>> >>On 11 Sep 2006 13:21:03 -0700, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>#1 reason for slow play is people looking for balls
Because they don't watch their balls and note a specific landk or sight
line so they are generally not even looking in the correct spot.
Otto
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 05:25:27
From: Henry
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
Otto wrote:
> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote in message
> news:1158156413.414300.268690@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>> Shintaro wrote:
>>> The_Professor wrote:
>>>> Howard Brazee wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11 Sep 2006 13:21:03 -0700, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> #1 reason for slow play is people looking for balls
>
>
> Because they don't watch their balls and note a specific landk or sight
> line so they are generally not even looking in the correct spot.
>
> Otto
>
>
Ever watch it all the way until it stops ... and forget where it was?
You will!
Henry
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 11:58:28
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 05:25:27 -0500, Henry <HenryNot@home.com > wrote:
>Ever watch it all the way until it stops ... and forget where it was?
>You will!
One advantage of using a push-cart is I can aim it at where I think my
ball is and then stand and watch as someone else hits.
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 14:47:55
From: Bear
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:10:55 -0400, "Otto"
<ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net > wrote:
>
>"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote in message
>news:1158156413.414300.268690@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Shintaro wrote:
>>> The_Professor wrote:
>>> > Howard Brazee wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>On 11 Sep 2006 13:21:03 -0700, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>>#1 reason for slow play is people looking for balls
>
>
>Because they don't watch their balls and note a specific landk or sight
>line so they are generally not even looking in the correct spot.
>
Around these parts you can watch your ball disappear into some trees
and then listen to it pinball around. If you get lucky you will see it
drop if not...
A couple of courses here have taken to king some of the worst spots
as lateral hazards for general play and it does help in keeping groups
moving.
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 11:05:15
From: Otto
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
"Bear" <bearlysane@XShawX.ca > wrote in message
news:t96gg2p2h9p9844ntsk48ou1b3f7188tf8@4ax.com...
> Around these parts you can watch your ball disappear into some trees
> and then listen to it pinball around. If you get lucky you will see it
> drop if not...
Announce "provisional" and hit another in a timely fashion.
Otto
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 16:00:43
From: Bear
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:05:15 -0400, "Otto"
<ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net > wrote:
>
>"Bear" <bearlysane@XShawX.ca> wrote in message
>news:t96gg2p2h9p9844ntsk48ou1b3f7188tf8@4ax.com...
>> Around these parts you can watch your ball disappear into some trees
>> and then listen to it pinball around. If you get lucky you will see it
>> drop if not...
>
>
>Announce "provisional" and hit another in a timely fashion.
No shit Sherlock. But like most golfers I will look for my first ball
'cause I'd rather be hitting 2 than 4 for my second shot.
My comment was more about your rek "Because they don't watch their
balls and note a specific landk or sight line so they are generally
not even looking in the correct spot."
You can watch the ball all ya want but when you can't see it in the
trees it is hard to know the exact spot to look. I also mentioned that
courses around here have ked some of the worst areas as a lateral
hazard which I am sure ya know means a provisional is not required.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 17:00:27
From: Otto
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
"Bear" <bearlysane@XShawX.ca > wrote in message
news:4bagg2pnjuclicro64tta11gbv3f0cmpgq@4ax.com...
> No shit Sherlock. But like most golfers I will look for my first ball
> 'cause I'd rather be hitting 2 than 4 for my second shot.
So don't hit the provisional and hold up the entire course while you hunt
around and then waste everyone's time going back to the point of the
previous shot.
Do you realize you don't have to play the provisional(no penalty) if you
find your original ball?
A provisional expends the time of a preshot routine. A walk back(or ride
back) due to a lost ball(and no provisional played) slows the entire course.
Otto
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 22:47:16
From: Bear
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 17:00:27 -0400, "Otto"
<ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net > wrote:
>
>
>"Bear" <bearlysane@XShawX.ca> wrote in message
>news:4bagg2pnjuclicro64tta11gbv3f0cmpgq@4ax.com...
>> No shit Sherlock. But like most golfers I will look for my first ball
>> 'cause I'd rather be hitting 2 than 4 for my second shot.
>
>So don't hit the provisional and hold up the entire course while you hunt
>around and then waste everyone's time going back to the point of the
>previous shot.
>
>Do you realize you don't have to play the provisional(no penalty) if you
>find your original ball?
>
>A provisional expends the time of a preshot routine. A walk back(or ride
>back) due to a lost ball(and no provisional played) slows the entire course.
Not once did I say don't hit the provisional. Not hitting a
provisional would be stupid if you thought the ball was lost or ob.
What I did say (gotta google it 'cause it has been snipped)
> >My comment was more about your rek "Because they don't watch their
>>balls and note a specific landk or sight line so they are generally
>>not even looking in the correct spot."
>>You can watch the ball all ya want but when you can't see it in the
>>trees it is hard to know the exact spot to look. I also mentioned that
>>courses around here have ked some of the worst areas as a lateral
>>hazard which I am sure ya know means a provisional is not required.
what I added is that I will look for the ball for a reasonable time in
the area I believe the ball to be because I'd rather have my next shot
be my second not my fourth (think I wrote that better than the first
time) Nothing about not hitting a provisional though a provisional
isn't required when the course has the worst areas ked as a lateral
hazard. (there are creeks somewhere in that bush).
One course that has in the past that has ked some treed areas/
second growth forest as a hazard is Storey Creek north of here.
http://www.storeycreek.bc.ca/ . king areas where the undergrowth is
thick as a hazard keeps the pace going better. People are much more
willing to be hitting 3 from beside of a hazard (spending way less
time looking) than 4 from the fairway or where ever the provisional
landed.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 19:29:03
From: Otto
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
"Bear" <bearlysane@XShawX.ca > wrote in message
news:7s1hg2p4159bg18aasouur6v8vgvjmd6el@4ax.com...
> Not once did I say don't hit the provisional. Not hitting a
> provisional would be stupid if you thought the ball was lost or ob.
> What I did say (gotta google it 'cause it has been snipped)
My point is if you don't know where your ball is with great certainty, hit a
provisional.
> what I added is that I will look for the ball for a reasonable time
Rule limits you to 5 minutes max.
> in
> the area I believe the ball to be because I'd rather have my next shot
> be my second not my fourth (think I wrote that better than the first
> time)
"in the area" calls for provisional for me. If I'm not confident that my
ball is in the fairway or I don't know exactly where it came to rest outside
of the fairway, I announce "provisional" and hit again. It doesn't take long
relative to hunting for a ball I never saw come to rest.
> Nothing about not hitting a provisional though a provisional
> isn't required when the course has the worst areas ked as a lateral
> hazard. (there are creeks somewhere in that bush).
I don't understand this. Don't you still have to know where the ball entered
the hazard? Does this require one to see the ball enter the hazard?
>
> One course that has in the past that has ked some treed areas/
> second growth forest as a hazard is Storey Creek north of here.
> http://www.storeycreek.bc.ca/ . king areas where the undergrowth is
> thick as a hazard keeps the pace going better. People are much more
> willing to be hitting 3 from beside of a hazard (spending way less
> time looking) than 4 from the fairway or where ever the provisional
> landed.
The course I play has knee deep poison ivy ground cover 10 yards and less
off the fairways. Should this be ked as a lateral hazard? It would be on
every hole. I just play it as a lost ball. It puts a real premium on hitting
the fairway.
Otto
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 03:08:03
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
"Otto" <ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:Zu0Og.560$tR2.217@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
>
>> Nothing about not hitting a provisional though a provisional
>> isn't required when the course has the worst areas ked as a lateral
>> hazard. (there are creeks somewhere in that bush).
>
>
>
> I don't understand this. Don't you still have to know where the ball
> entered the hazard? Does this require one to see the ball enter the
> hazard?
>
Not only is a provisional not required, it's not allowed if there is
'reasonable evidence' that the ball entered the water hazard. In cases
where a course ks off a wooded area as a lateral water hazard, it's not
likely to be in doubt. So you're not allowed to declare a provisional. If
you hit again from the tee, it's under Rule 26 and penalty + distance will
apply even if the original ball turns out to not be lost since the new ball
is by definition the ball in play.
In this instance it will almost always be better to drop from the point of
entry. As far as knowing exactly where a ball enters a lateral hazard is
concerned, this is a frequent problem in non-professional play where no
spotters are available, especially when the water hazard is not in view.
You just have to make the best guess...
Scott
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 19:20:03
From: 3putt
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
"Bear" <bearlysane@XShawX.ca > wrote in message
news:4bagg2pnjuclicro64tta11gbv3f0cmpgq@4ax.com...
>>
> No shit Sherlock. But like most golfers I will look for my first ball
> 'cause I'd rather be hitting 2 than 4 for my second shot.
>
On your second shot you'd be hitting 4? Could you explain that?
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 22:10:22
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 19:20:03 GMT, "3putt" <golf24/7@golfing.com >
wrote:
>> No shit Sherlock. But like most golfers I will look for my first ball
>> 'cause I'd rather be hitting 2 than 4 for my second shot.
>>
>On your second shot you'd be hitting 4? Could you explain that?
If he finds his ball, his next stroke is 2.
If he doesn't find his ball, his next stroke is 4.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 22:17:09
From: 3putt
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:cd0hg2h98vuca8us2o8d20p508bsq1meun@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 19:20:03 GMT, "3putt" <golf24/7@golfing.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> No shit Sherlock. But like most golfers I will look for my first ball
>>> 'cause I'd rather be hitting 2 than 4 for my second shot.
>>>
>>On your second shot you'd be hitting 4? Could you explain that?
>
> If he finds his ball, his next stroke is 2.
> If he doesn't find his ball, his next stroke is 4.
Where did it mention that he even found his provisional? Back to the tee.
He's hitting 5.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 23:29:50
From: Bear
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 22:17:09 GMT, "3putt" <golf24/7@golfing.com >
wrote:
>
>"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
>news:cd0hg2h98vuca8us2o8d20p508bsq1meun@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 19:20:03 GMT, "3putt" <golf24/7@golfing.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> No shit Sherlock. But like most golfers I will look for my first ball
>>>> 'cause I'd rather be hitting 2 than 4 for my second shot.
>>>>
>>>On your second shot you'd be hitting 4? Could you explain that?
>>
>> If he finds his ball, his next stroke is 2.
>> If he doesn't find his ball, his next stroke is 4.
>
>Where did it mention that he even found his provisional? Back to the tee.
>He's hitting 5.
>
Been there, Done that, got the T-shirt.
Last time I was 5 off the tee was 3-4 years ago and I did it twice in
the round. Got a case of the rights at Fairview up in the Okanagan
holes 4 and 5. http://www.fairviewmountain.com/fairview/4.html
Ended up with a bullwinkle and 13.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 19:50:41
From: Otto
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
"Bear" <bearlysane@XShawX.ca > wrote in message
news:5m4hg25c3ep7vba1avdjo85cv5mkeht06o@4ax.com...
> Last time I was 5 off the tee was 3-4 years ago and I did it twice in
> the round. Got a case of the rights at Fairview up in the Okanagan
> holes 4 and 5. http://www.fairviewmountain.com/fairview/4.html
> Ended up with a bullwinkle and 13.
I saw a guy get the case of the rights on the first hole of an 18 hole round
of stroke play and he went through 2 sleeves of brand new balls before he
kept one inbounds.
The game can really kick ya in the gonads.
Otto
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 19:19:38
From: Otto
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
"3putt" <golf24/7@golfing.com > wrote in message
news:Fr%Ng.34064$lk6.2538@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
> Where did it mention that he even found his provisional? Back to the tee.
> He's hitting 5.
And he might end up hitting 7 or 9 off the tee.
Otto
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 17:03:58
From: Otto
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
"3putt" <golf24/7@golfing.com > wrote in message
news:DRYNg.33683$lk6.21905@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
> On your second shot you'd be hitting 4? Could you explain that?
Rule 27 Lost ball.
Stroke and distance.
Otto
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 21:17:42
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
Otto <ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net > wrote:
: "3putt" <golf24/7@golfing.com > wrote in message
: news:DRYNg.33683$lk6.21905@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
:
: > On your second shot you'd be hitting 4? Could you explain that?
:
: Rule 27 Lost ball.
:
: Stroke and distance.
That's 3.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 17:35:32
From: Otto
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3fchf5IhfgN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> That's 3.
If we assume the "first" shot was off the tee and number 1 , the "second"
shot would be 4(following the provisional 3).
I believe that is what was alluded to.
Otto
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 16:48:13
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 17:35:32 -0400, "Otto"
<ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net > wrote:
>"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
>news:0T3fchf5IhfgN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
>> That's 3.
>
>If we assume the "first" shot was off the tee and number 1 , the "second"
>shot would be 4(following the provisional 3).
>
>I believe that is what was alluded to.
>
>Otto
>
No. If the first shot is lost, or OB, you re-tee and the provisional,
if it is used, is lying three.
--
___,
\o
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 18:06:50
From: Otto
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:j1vgg29jm4k2ip7lsql089v7mq8pd1ldph@4ax.com...
> No. If the first shot is lost, or OB, you re-tee and the provisional,
> if it is used, is lying three.
You are correct and I believe that is what the original poster meant.
His "second" shot would be hitting 4 instead of 2.
Otto
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 22:47:50
From: Bear
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:06:50 -0400, "Otto"
<ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net > wrote:
>
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:j1vgg29jm4k2ip7lsql089v7mq8pd1ldph@4ax.com...
>> No. If the first shot is lost, or OB, you re-tee and the provisional,
>> if it is used, is lying three.
>
>You are correct and I believe that is what the original poster meant.
>
>His "second" shot would be hitting 4 instead of 2.
>
That is what I meant.
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 19:58:03
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
long&left wrote:
>
> all that you had to do is take the bet. The parameters of the bet
> indicated exactly how you would be paid if I lost. You're just
> continuing to pussy foot around doing your side slide act. Same as that
> idiot Eric...I don't have the patience or time for your foul personality
> anymore. Life is way to short to have to deal with the likes of you
Wuss!
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 21:01:18
From: long&left
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
Dene wrote:
> long&left wrote:
>
>> all that you had to do is take the bet. The parameters of the bet
>> indicated exactly how you would be paid if I lost. You're just
>> continuing to pussy foot around doing your side slide act. Same as that
>> idiot Eric...I don't have the patience or time for your foul personality
>> anymore. Life is way to short to have to deal with the likes of you
>
> Wuss!
>
> -Greg
>
yawn...
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 16:45:38
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
long&left wrote:
>
> I'm certainly tired of playing your silly game. Since you won't accept
> my bet, I hereby retract it. I frankly don't give a shit if Eric has a
> degree or not. On to more pleasant things to do...
The game playing, now back peddling, are your actions. All I tried to
do was make sure the $$ is paid and that lingering definitions were
resolved before the bet is accepted. People do this all the time, in
golf, in life.
But....when it came time to put up, you ran. I knew all along your
offer to bet was a transparent attempt to ingratiate yourself with
those whom you admire (unlikely in return).
Wannabe defined!
-Greg
Ps. You shouldn't play with your mama's $$.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 17:46:32
From: long&left
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
Dene wrote:
> long&left wrote:
>
>> I'm certainly tired of playing your silly game. Since you won't accept
>> my bet, I hereby retract it. I frankly don't give a shit if Eric has a
>> degree or not. On to more pleasant things to do...
>
> The game playing, now back peddling, are your actions. All I tried to
> do was make sure the $$ is paid and that lingering definitions were
> resolved before the bet is accepted. People do this all the time, in
> golf, in life.
>
> But....when it came time to put up, you ran. I knew all along your
> offer to bet was a transparent attempt to ingratiate yourself with
> those whom you admire (unlikely in return).
>
> Wannabe defined!
>
> -Greg
>
> Ps. You shouldn't play with your mama's $$.
>
all that you had to do is take the bet. The parameters of the bet
indicated exactly how you would be paid if I lost. You're just
continuing to pussy foot around doing your side slide act. Same as that
idiot Eric...I don't have the patience or time for your foul personality
anymore. Life is way to short to have to deal with the likes of you
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 14:25:55
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
warren montgomery wrote:
> > #1 reason for slow play is people looking for balls and not letting the
> > group behind play through. Let 'em play through, and the caravan keeps
> > moving, you just move down a spot...but we can't get that anymore, so
> > when groups stop on say 4, 9, 14 and 17 to look for alls, everone
> > waits, then someone on 11 has to look for a ball...and the wait goes
> > on!
> >
> Actually if someone is hunting balls on 4 or 5 holes something else is
> wrong -- either the golfers aren't paying attention to where they are
> hitting or they are playing a course that's way too hard. I rarely spend
> more than 30 seconds looking for a ball. If you pay attention to where it
> goes and line it up you will find it pretty quick in any reasonable lie. If
> you have been paying attention and can't find it quickly you probably
> wouldn't want to play it anyway, so why bother looking?
You must play in a different world than me, because anywhere I have
played, in any foursome, or even the abominable 5some, there are
several hunts for balls every round. Add that up over all the groups
out on the course, and you have the major thing causing slow play.
There is no reason to make the group waiting on the tee wait for you to
look for your ball.
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 14:23:57
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 11 Sep 2006 13:21:03 -0700, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
> >#1 reason for slow play is people looking for balls and not letting the
> >group behind play through. Let 'em play through, and the caravan keeps
> >moving, you just move down a spot...but we can't get that anymore, so
> >when groups stop on say 4, 9, 14 and 17 to look for alls, everone
> >waits, then someone on 11 has to look for a ball...and the wait goes
> >on!
> >
> >Now an old fella like me can recall the good old glory days of golf
> >when people waved the group behind through when they stopped to look
> >for a ball...back in the days when people walked...actually played
> >golf...
>
> Letting people play through doesn't work with overcrowded courses.
> There isn't any "through" available.
So you just hold the who caravan up while you hunt for your ball? If
some other group is waiting, you either let them through or don't look
for the ball.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 16:42:29
From: Shintaro
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
The_Professor wrote:
> Howard Brazee wrote:
>
>>On 11 Sep 2006 13:21:03 -0700, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>#1 reason for slow play is people looking for balls and not letting the
>>>group behind play through. Let 'em play through, and the caravan keeps
>>>moving, you just move down a spot...but we can't get that anymore, so
>>>when groups stop on say 4, 9, 14 and 17 to look for alls, everone
>>>waits, then someone on 11 has to look for a ball...and the wait goes
>>>on!
>>>
>>>Now an old fella like me can recall the good old glory days of golf
>>>when people waved the group behind through when they stopped to look
>>>for a ball...back in the days when people walked...actually played
>>>golf...
>>
>>Letting people play through doesn't work with overcrowded courses.
>>There isn't any "through" available.
>
>
> So you just hold the who caravan up while you hunt for your ball? If
> some other group is waiting, you either let them through or don't look
> for the ball.
>
I *think* what he meant is every group on the course is slow. So slow
that taking 2 minutes to look for your ball makes little or no
difference if you're faster than the groups in front of you.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 23:04:03
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
On 12 Sep 2006 14:23:57 -0700, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:
>> Letting people play through doesn't work with overcrowded courses.
>> There isn't any "through" available.
>
>So you just hold the who caravan up while you hunt for your ball? If
>some other group is waiting, you either let them through or don't look
>for the ball.
Only if the people behind me can't see the people in front of me.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 21:30:29
From: 3putt
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message
news:1158096237.553660.185140@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> So you just hold the who caravan up while you hunt for your ball? If
> some other group is waiting, you either let them through or don't look
> for the ball.
>
Ever notice the signs at the club house about stopping at the turn. I've
seen signs that say you might lose your turn if your stop exceeds 15
minutes. C'mon. And then, I've played courses where a cart girl would meet
you on the 9th tee, take your order, and have it ready at the turn.
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 10:00:05
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
long&left wrote:
> since when can you graduate from a 2 year college SCL? And, why isn't
> Eric's honor listed on his diploma?? I just wonder why one who has his
> education questioned wouldn't just say "Hey, I graduated from XYX
> University in 1985, you can check it out if you like" and end it at that...
> Dave
I attended my ex-wife's Associate Nursing degree graduation in 1986.
She graduated
SCL. It took her three years to complete the program. She could have
went on to acquire her Bachelors but there was little point unless she
wanted to go in administration. R.N. pay for a hospital floor nurse is
the same.
Since you're quoting Wiki, it clearly states that SCL honors are
granted to the top ten percent.
Here it is....
"The Faculty then prepared regulations for recommending candidates for
the Bachelor's degree, either for an ordinary degree or for a degree
with distinction; the grades of distinction being summa cum laude,
magna cum laude, and cum laude. The degree summa cum laude is for those
who have attained ninety per cent on the general scale, or have
received Highest Honors in any department, and carries with it the
assignment of an oration on the list of Commencement parts; the degree
magna cum laude is for those who have attained eighty per cent on the
general scale, or have received Honors in any department, and carries
with it the assignment of a dissertation; and the degree cum laude is
to be given to those who attain seventy-five per cent on the general
scale, and to those who receive Honorable Mention in any study together
with sixty-five per cent on the general scale, or seventy per cent on
the last three years, or seventy-five per cent on the last two."
Are you done worming around about this?
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 10:41:16
From: long&left
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
Dene wrote:
> long&left wrote:
>
>> since when can you graduate from a 2 year college SCL? And, why isn't
>> Eric's honor listed on his diploma?? I just wonder why one who has his
>> education questioned wouldn't just say "Hey, I graduated from XYX
>> University in 1985, you can check it out if you like" and end it at that...
>> Dave
>
> I attended my ex-wife's Associate Nursing degree graduation in 1986.
> She graduated
> SCL. It took her three years to complete the program. She could have
> went on to acquire her Bachelors but there was little point unless she
> wanted to go in administration. R.N. pay for a hospital floor nurse is
> the same.
>
> Since you're quoting Wiki, it clearly states that SCL honors are
> granted to the top ten percent.
>
> Here it is....
>
> "The Faculty then prepared regulations for recommending candidates for
> the Bachelor's degree, either for an ordinary degree or for a degree
> with distinction; the grades of distinction being summa cum laude,
> magna cum laude, and cum laude. The degree summa cum laude is for those
> who have attained ninety per cent on the general scale, or have
> received Highest Honors in any department, and carries with it the
> assignment of an oration on the list of Commencement parts; the degree
> magna cum laude is for those who have attained eighty per cent on the
> general scale, or have received Honors in any department, and carries
> with it the assignment of a dissertation; and the degree cum laude is
> to be given to those who attain seventy-five per cent on the general
> scale, and to those who receive Honorable Mention in any study together
> with sixty-five per cent on the general scale, or seventy per cent on
> the last three years, or seventy-five per cent on the last two."
>
> Are you done worming around about this?
>
> -Greg
>
I'm certainly tired of playing your silly game. Since you won't accept
my bet, I hereby retract it. I frankly don't give a shit if Eric has a
degree or not. On to more pleasant things to do...
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 09:50:36
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
long&left wrote:
> why in the world would I have to pay? You haven't accepted the bet.
I want guarantees that you are going to pay. You should want the same
from me. A check for 5k from each other, held in escrow or an
attorney's trust account, makes certain that both parties are going to
pony up.
If
> Eric won't release the information, that's your problem, not mine.
Eric will release the information once the guarantee to pay is in
place.
And,
> I agree that you and Eric should quit wasting everyones time with this
> because he doesn't have 3 four year degrees summa cum laude...
You're exactly right. He has 2 four year degrees and 1 associates, 2-3
year degree, ALL summa cum laude. He has not wavered.
So....you agree to these guarantees or not?
-Greg
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 09:50:06
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> I submit that you're playing someplace well outside the American
> norm for pace of play. For instance, 4 hours in Scotland wouldn't
> go over well at all. But on our side of the pond, that's a coveted
> pace almost anywhere.
Not quite true, it all depends on the course. If my foursome plays our
home track, Pungent Municipal, in 3.5 hours, we're waiting on every
hole. But we can go to another more difficult course and play in 4.5
hours and never have to wait a shot. A lot of it depends on how much
time you spend looking for balls or flirting with the drink chick.
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 09:44:00
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
cja wrote:
> long&left wrote:
>
> > my bet was really simple. Honors received when graduating are just that
> > and one either has them or one doesn't. Shouldn't be a problem to verify
> > at the 3 educational institutions that Eric supposedly got his degrees
> > from. And, I don't trust anyone with my $5k. As stated in my bet I want
> > the names of the schools that Eric graduated from. I will then verify
> > that he has three four year degrees summa cum laude...
> >
> I see you slipped in the 'four year' clause, but I don't know if Eric
> ever claimed that for all the degrees:
>
> Hammer wrote:
>
> > I have a third degree in Nursing, an Associates, which was also Summa Cum
> > Laude, in fact second in the class, but this is not denoted on the degree.
> >
> "Associates", implying a 2-year degree?
>
> - cja
Exactly right, cja. Eric's claim is two Bachelor's degrees and one
Associate nursing degree, ALL summa cum laude. You agree, Dave?
-Greg
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 09:27:31
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
long&left wrote:
> my bet was really simple. Honors received when graduating are just that
> and one either has them or one doesn't. Shouldn't be a problem to verify
> at the 3 educational institutions that Eric supposedly got his degrees
> from. And, I don't trust anyone with my $5k. As stated in my bet I want
> the names of the schools that Eric graduated from. I will then verify
> that he has three four year degrees summa cum laude...
I spoke to one of the colleges about that. No information is released
unless they receive a signed authorization from the student. Upon
receipt, then the college will fax the records. So how do you want to
handle that reality?
> I am wondering why you are pounding away at this when Eric himself has
> backpedaled about having honors attached to his three degrees??
It's simple. I trust Eric. You....only about as far as Peter Strauss
can piss. Which brings me to the next problem. How do I know you're
going to pay. Answer....5k from you and I sitting in escrow or with an
attorney. Otherwise, there is no sense in Eric or I wasting our time
with this.
So given this dose of reality, what say you?
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 09:43:40
From: long&left
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
Dene wrote:
> long&left wrote:
>
>> my bet was really simple. Honors received when graduating are just that
>> and one either has them or one doesn't. Shouldn't be a problem to verify
>> at the 3 educational institutions that Eric supposedly got his degrees
>> from. And, I don't trust anyone with my $5k. As stated in my bet I want
>> the names of the schools that Eric graduated from. I will then verify
>> that he has three four year degrees summa cum laude...
>
> I spoke to one of the colleges about that. No information is released
> unless they receive a signed authorization from the student. Upon
> receipt, then the college will fax the records. So how do you want to
> handle that reality?
>
>> I am wondering why you are pounding away at this when Eric himself has
>> backpedaled about having honors attached to his three degrees??
>
> It's simple. I trust Eric. You....only about as far as Peter Strauss
> can piss. Which brings me to the next problem. How do I know you're
> going to pay. Answer....5k from you and I sitting in escrow or with an
> attorney. Otherwise, there is no sense in Eric or I wasting our time
> with this.
>
> So given this dose of reality, what say you?
>
> -Greg
>
why in the world would I have to pay? You haven't accepted the bet. If
Eric won't release the information, that's your problem, not mine. And,
I agree that you and Eric should quit wasting everyones time with this
because he doesn't have 3 four year degrees summa cum laude...
And, what the hell does Peter Strauss have to do with this?
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 09:19:21
From: cja
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
long&left wrote:
> my bet was really simple. Honors received when graduating are just that
> and one either has them or one doesn't. Shouldn't be a problem to verify
> at the 3 educational institutions that Eric supposedly got his degrees
> from. And, I don't trust anyone with my $5k. As stated in my bet I want
> the names of the schools that Eric graduated from. I will then verify
> that he has three four year degrees summa cum laude...
>
I see you slipped in the 'four year' clause, but I don't know if Eric
ever claimed that for all the degrees:
Hammer wrote:
> I have a third degree in Nursing, an Associates, which was also Summa Cum
> Laude, in fact second in the class, but this is not denoted on the degree.
>
"Associates", implying a 2-year degree?
- cja
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 09:51:30
From: long&left
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
cja wrote:
> long&left wrote:
>
>> my bet was really simple. Honors received when graduating are just that
>> and one either has them or one doesn't. Shouldn't be a problem to verify
>> at the 3 educational institutions that Eric supposedly got his degrees
>> from. And, I don't trust anyone with my $5k. As stated in my bet I want
>> the names of the schools that Eric graduated from. I will then verify
>> that he has three four year degrees summa cum laude...
>>
> I see you slipped in the 'four year' clause, but I don't know if Eric
> ever claimed that for all the degrees:
>
> Hammer wrote:
>
>> I have a third degree in Nursing, an Associates, which was also Summa Cum
>> Laude, in fact second in the class, but this is not denoted on the degree.
>>
> "Associates", implying a 2-year degree?
>
> - cja
>
from Wikipedia regarding Latin honors:
"These honors are almost always awarded to undergraduates earning their
bachelor's, and much more rarely to graduate students taking their
master's or doctorate. The honor is typically indicated on the diploma."
since when can you graduate from a 2 year college SCL? And, why isn't
Eric's honor listed on his diploma?? I just wonder why one who has his
education questioned wouldn't just say "Hey, I graduated from XYX
University in 1985, you can check it out if you like" and end it at that...
Dave
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 05:36:38
From: Tex
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
John van der Pflum wrote:
> On 11 Sep 2006 14:03:39 -0700, "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Chris Bellomy wrote:
> >> Tex <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> : Chris Bellomy wrote:
> >> :
> >> :> I find that I'm learning to be adaptable to the pace, btw. In a
> >> :> situation like early morning at the Tribute, I can play no-nonsense
> >> :> line-it-up-and-hit-it golf quite comfortably (this has always been
> >> :> my preferred way to play, in fact). But I've learned to ratchet it
> >> :> down if the pace is slow -- I take practice swings to stay loose,
> >> :> I walk slower, I do whatever I can to make it so that my group
> >> :> just does keep up with the group ahead. I'd rather spend 12 minutes
> >> :> with a ball in play and 3 minutes waiting on the tee than 9 in play
> >> :> and 6 on the tee.
> >> :
> >> : I wish you could teach me! I'm bored after 4 hours...happens at most
> >> : (if not all) RSG events...except when I'm lucky enough to get in Thor's
> >> : group :-) One of the prime reasons why I gave up tournament play as
> >> : well. 5.5 hour rounds became to unbearable. Life is too short to
> >> : stand around doing nothing.
> >>
> >> I could loop for ya:
> >>
> >> CB: OK, when the green clears, you're 53 to the front, 64 to the pin.
> >> MK: Yeah, ok, can you move them off the green now?
> >> CB: Bush sucks.
> >> MK: What?
> >> CB: Bush is a liar and an idiot and should be sent to prison.
> >> MK: I think you need to shut the fuck up right about now, fuckhead!
> >> CB: What, you can't handle the truth?
> >> MK: I haven't heard a bit of truth out of your mouth yet, what
> >> would you know about truth?
> >> CB: Well why don't you tell me one thing I said that was false?
> >> MK: Your whole life is false, dickhead!
> >> CB: Green's clear. 8?
> >> MK: Yeah, I'll take the 8, thanks.
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> CB: Pin high, very nice, I guess that distance I gave was truth, huh?
> >> MK: Here's some truth: shut up. And hand me the fuckin' putter already,
> >> I'm trying to play some golf here, you remember golf?
> >>
> >> Time would fly, and maybe my teeth as well. :)
> >
> >Had I been drinking anything, it would have destroyed my flat panel :)
> >
> >Ya know, this has merit...making Tex mad, or telling Tex he can't do
> >something always has a positive affect. Just ask the Farkturd Manager
> >at my first computer job that said I'd never make it without a
> >degree....20 yrs later I'm at the top of my field :)
> >
> >Come to think of it, Pflum is the right kind of caddie for a job like
> >this, but he's a Repub...
> >
> >Tex
>
> Don't worry. I'm very good at playing the Devi's Advocate.
Your delivery sucks :)
You aren't believable, everyone knows Rich people can't afford anymore
taxes, they already buy too many luxury goods and extra homes! And you
can let Pebble wash into the ocean, Bandon will be spared, it's 200 ft.
above sea level. Last thing we need is more insurance, it only makes
dolts like Dene get richer.
<g >
Tex
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 10:17:28
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
On 12 Sep 2006 05:36:38 -0700, "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>John van der Pflum wrote:
>> On 11 Sep 2006 14:03:39 -0700, "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Chris Bellomy wrote:
>> >> Tex <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> : Chris Bellomy wrote:
>> >> :
>> >> :> I find that I'm learning to be adaptable to the pace, btw. In a
>> >> :> situation like early morning at the Tribute, I can play no-nonsense
>> >> :> line-it-up-and-hit-it golf quite comfortably (this has always been
>> >> :> my preferred way to play, in fact). But I've learned to ratchet it
>> >> :> down if the pace is slow -- I take practice swings to stay loose,
>> >> :> I walk slower, I do whatever I can to make it so that my group
>> >> :> just does keep up with the group ahead. I'd rather spend 12 minutes
>> >> :> with a ball in play and 3 minutes waiting on the tee than 9 in play
>> >> :> and 6 on the tee.
>> >> :
>> >> : I wish you could teach me! I'm bored after 4 hours...happens at most
>> >> : (if not all) RSG events...except when I'm lucky enough to get in Thor's
>> >> : group :-) One of the prime reasons why I gave up tournament play as
>> >> : well. 5.5 hour rounds became to unbearable. Life is too short to
>> >> : stand around doing nothing.
>> >>
>> >> I could loop for ya:
>> >>
>> >> CB: OK, when the green clears, you're 53 to the front, 64 to the pin.
>> >> MK: Yeah, ok, can you move them off the green now?
>> >> CB: Bush sucks.
>> >> MK: What?
>> >> CB: Bush is a liar and an idiot and should be sent to prison.
>> >> MK: I think you need to shut the fuck up right about now, fuckhead!
>> >> CB: What, you can't handle the truth?
>> >> MK: I haven't heard a bit of truth out of your mouth yet, what
>> >> would you know about truth?
>> >> CB: Well why don't you tell me one thing I said that was false?
>> >> MK: Your whole life is false, dickhead!
>> >> CB: Green's clear. 8?
>> >> MK: Yeah, I'll take the 8, thanks.
>> >>
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> CB: Pin high, very nice, I guess that distance I gave was truth, huh?
>> >> MK: Here's some truth: shut up. And hand me the fuckin' putter already,
>> >> I'm trying to play some golf here, you remember golf?
>> >>
>> >> Time would fly, and maybe my teeth as well. :)
>> >
>> >Had I been drinking anything, it would have destroyed my flat panel :)
>> >
>> >Ya know, this has merit...making Tex mad, or telling Tex he can't do
>> >something always has a positive affect. Just ask the Farkturd Manager
>> >at my first computer job that said I'd never make it without a
>> >degree....20 yrs later I'm at the top of my field :)
>> >
>> >Come to think of it, Pflum is the right kind of caddie for a job like
>> >this, but he's a Repub...
>> >
>> >Tex
>>
>> Don't worry. I'm very good at playing the Devi's Advocate.
>
>Your delivery sucks :)
>You aren't believable, everyone knows Rich people can't afford anymore
>taxes, they already buy too many luxury goods and extra homes! And you
>can let Pebble wash into the ocean, Bandon will be spared, it's 200 ft.
>above sea level. Last thing we need is more insurance, it only makes
>dolts like Dene get richer.
>
><g>
>
>Tex
You're right. Me playing a democrat would be a stretch. I'll come up
with other things that will piss you off. I **know** I can do that
without much trouble.
--
jvdp
Paging Mike Plowinske. You are on the tee Sept 16.
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 05:15:19
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
S McFarlane wrote:
> <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
> news:1157980848.009622.87540@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >S McFarlane wrote:
[snip]
> >
> >> So, IMO, the #1 reason for slow play is: People who have unrealistic
> >> expectations as to how fast they can squeeze a round into their busy
> >> schedule. IM further O, people hampered by this fault should really
> >> consider taking up another hobby, something they might enjoy more. The
> >> brokering of stocks and bonds comes to mind.
> >
> > I could as easily say that folks who want to stand around in short
> > grass should go to a park. If you go to the "home" of golf, 4 hours
> > will probably get you asked to pick up and move forward. 3.5 is
> > all it should take, all other things being equal.
>
> I don't live in Scotland. So the pace there isn't really an issue for me.
> If I go there, I'll continue my usual 3 1/2 hour pace and there won't be any
> issues. Has the 4 hour standard in America been changed? I've seen it on
> one scorecard recently, and the GPS system on another course seemed to be
> tuned to 4 hours. That's not a st ass question, if it happens to sound
> like one. I'm honestly curious to know if I've got it wrong.
>
> By the way, reading my last bit from the previous post again, it comes off a
> lot more acidic than it was intended. I suppose what should be said instead
> is that golfers on both extremes of the pace of play spectrum should be
> considerate of other players. All I hear is bitching about slow play.
> True, I have seen more of that than overly fast play. However, it is
> possible to be an ass while playing a fast pace. For example, twice a
> twosome has hit into my group off the tee. That would have been asinine
> even if we were playing slow (we were well within a 4 hour pace).
I was in a 3 some that was on pace for a 3 hour round when we
caught up with a 4some at the 15th obviously on a 4+ hour pace.
They weren't letting us by and one of our 3 started agitating. He
wanted to call the pro shop, hit in to them, all manner of stupid
stuff. I mentioned that it might be hard to explain to anyone
why he was upset that his 18 was now going to "drag out" to
about 3.25. It think it was Brett that tells the story of being called
out to the 9th because a couple of guys were upset with the
pace of the group in front of the, and they were currently at
the 1.25 hour k or something. At some point you've got to
understand that you've got something good, even if it could be
better.
> Here's a good rule of etiquette : Never hit into a group that is playing
> under a 4 hour pace, and never hit the ball back at a group if you're
> playing over a 4 1/2 hour pace...
The usual admonition is to keep up with the group in front of you.
That can be tough when you're a 4-man behind a 2. The only other
observation I have is that you seemed to have been a 4some that
had a strangely closely spaced number of 2somes behind them.
A starter problem I'd suggest. 'Round these parts they tend to
avoid that kind of thing. 2somes are "bunched" in order to try
to avoid these kinds of hassles. Truth is that a couple of those
2somes should have "formed" a 4some and then seen if they
were really still "riding" you. And on lightly loaded courses,
instead of riding a 4some trying to play through, we've taken
lately to just going around them, playing the hole in front of them,
then backing up and playing the hole we skipped. By then we
can often move to the next tee and still be in front of them, and
they didn't really have to do anything.
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 03:20:00
From: Tex
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 02:57:26 GMT, "S McFarlane"
> <skottymac@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:0T3f7sa6IqlcN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> >>
> >> Which are those? I'm really curious now!
> >>
> >
> >Over on the east side of town: Firewheel in Garland and Waterview in
> >Rowlett. From the courses you've mentioned so far, you probably would be
> >disappointed in the course quality. The Bridges at Firewheel is probably in
> >the best shape, but avoid the boring "Traditional" nine over there. None of
> >them are anywhere near Tour 18 or the Tribute.
> >
> >Scott
> >
>
> You might try Woodbridge in Wylie on 78, it used to be in really good
> shape. Not too far from Firewheel courses.
I played there on Sat. It's decent again. Not great like it was in
beginning, but certainly worth the money.
Tex
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 06:24:20
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
On 12 Sep 2006 03:20:00 -0700, "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>Bobby Knight wrote:
>> You might try Woodbridge in Wylie on 78, it used to be in really good
>> shape. Not too far from Firewheel courses.
>
>I played there on Sat. It's decent again. Not great like it was in
>beginning, but certainly worth the money.
>
>Tex
I live 4 miles from Woodbridge, and the only time I've ever played it
was at your RSG tournament back in the late 90s.
___,
\o
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 23:36:10
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
long&left wrote:
> Dene wrote:
> > long&left wrote:
> >
> >> or, he can have my new boat...
> >> :)
> >
> > Hey not-so-brave Dave. You bettin or not??
> >
> > -Greg
> >
>
> Hey Hotshot, I gave you the parameters...did you respond? If so, I
> missed it...been a busy day
I think you're lying, you read my response! For the sake of argument
and $5000, read this once again and respond accordingly.... Comments
below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's some serious thoughts/questions, brave-Dave.
1. 3rd party. You probably met Bill-O at RSG-NW. If not, would you
at least accept his well deserved reputation for being a straight-up
guy? Bill lives about 10 minutes from Eric's house. If Eric drops off
the proof and has Bill review it, would you accept Bill's testimony as
proof? If not, then prescribe your means of verification.
2. Summa Cum Laude. Truthfully I wasn't that familar with these
designations, having graduated on the bottom of my class. So....I
looked it up on the internet last night and learned that is describes
those who are at the top 10 percent of their class. Do you accept this
definition too?
If number 1 and 2 are agreeable, indicate your affirmation in RSG, then
e-mail me at gdstrue at aol.com. I'll respond with an account number.
If further clarification is required, then respond here and we'll work
through it.
Oh....obviously being a partner in either boat is impractical, so would
you accept 5k in cash if I lose? Also, your challenge said nothing
about a time limit. Would the end of September be sufficient?
-Greg
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look familiar? Now put up or quit wasting my time, wannabe.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 07:32:27
From: long&left
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
Dene wrote:
> long&left wrote:
>> Dene wrote:
>>> long&left wrote:
>>>
>>>> or, he can have my new boat...
>>>> :)
>>> Hey not-so-brave Dave. You bettin or not??
>>>
>>> -Greg
>>>
>> Hey Hotshot, I gave you the parameters...did you respond? If so, I
>> missed it...been a busy day
>
> I think you're lying, you read my response! For the sake of argument
> and $5000, read this once again and respond accordingly.... Comments
> below.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Here's some serious thoughts/questions, brave-Dave.
>
> 1. 3rd party. You probably met Bill-O at RSG-NW. If not, would you
> at least accept his well deserved reputation for being a straight-up
> guy? Bill lives about 10 minutes from Eric's house. If Eric drops off
>
> the proof and has Bill review it, would you accept Bill's testimony as
> proof? If not, then prescribe your means of verification.
>
>
> 2. Summa Cum Laude. Truthfully I wasn't that familar with these
> designations, having graduated on the bottom of my class. So....I
> looked it up on the internet last night and learned that is describes
> those who are at the top 10 percent of their class. Do you accept this
>
> definition too?
>
>
> If number 1 and 2 are agreeable, indicate your affirmation in RSG, then
>
> e-mail me at gdstrue at aol.com. I'll respond with an account number.
> If further clarification is required, then respond here and we'll work
> through it.
>
>
> Oh....obviously being a partner in either boat is impractical, so would
>
> you accept 5k in cash if I lose? Also, your challenge said nothing
> about a time limit. Would the end of September be sufficient?
>
>
> -Greg
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Look familiar? Now put up or quit wasting my time, wannabe.
>
my bet was really simple. Honors received when graduating are just that
and one either has them or one doesn't. Shouldn't be a problem to verify
at the 3 educational institutions that Eric supposedly got his degrees
from. And, I don't trust anyone with my $5k. As stated in my bet I want
the names of the schools that Eric graduated from. I will then verify
that he has three four year degrees summa cum laude...
I am wondering why you are pounding away at this when Eric himself has
backpedaled about having honors attached to his three degrees??
Dave
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 21:39:59
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
S McFarlane wrote:
> "Birdie Bill" <bighorn_bill@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1157954600.440770.306390@q16g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > If I didn't know better, I'd swear you were one of the guys I got
> > paired with today. We were a twosome, me, and another single,
> > an old guy. When we met on the first tee, I asked which tees
> > they liked to play from. The old guy said whites, so I said fine,
> > I'd play with him there. The other two guys insisted on playing
> > the blue tees. It soon became obvious that neither of them
> > should have been playing the blues, as shot after shot
> > curved off who knows where. And this was on a tight course
> > with deep rough, and bad news if you missed the fairway.
>
> Yikes, I hope you don't think I was one of those!
No, I knew it wasn't actually you, but some of the things you said
in your original post reminded me of the same attitude that these
guys had.
>
>
> > The old guy was actually pretty good. Not long, but he stayed
> > mostly in the fairways, and was a deadly putter.
>
> Now I know I wasn't him, so it must have been one of the other guys!
>
> >
> > Anyway, what started out as an interesting round turned into
> > a preoccupation over the pace of play, and it became that way
> > not because of overcrowded conditions, but because of
> > clueless behaviour of two guys in our group. It really started
> > to bug me, and affected my play. I don't like getting "the talk"
> > from the shall, when it wsn't my fault, but the fault of a
> > couple of strangers I got thrown in with. Then messages from
> > the clubhouse on the gps screen... well, not pleasant.
>
> Yep, that sucks, and that hasn't changed in the last 20 years. Silly slow
> play is no more fun than silly fast play. It can ruin a good time just as
> easy as someone who wants to hurry things along when they're already moving
> at a sufficient pace.
"Sufficient pace" is all relative, but my definition is keeping up with
the
group ahead of you. As long as you can do that, then no one has
a basis to hassle you. If you can't keep up, though, then you need to
let others play through.
> I call it the Masters syndrome: someone who's
> shooting maybe 90 if he's lucky but needs a few minutes to read each putt as
> if the green jacket depended on it.
Again, as long as someone is able to keep up, I don't care how much
time
he spends doing individual things. One of my biggest problems is not
taking
enough time to read a putt. I always hate it when I missread a putt
because I didn't take the time to look at it from the other side, and
miss
the fact that there is a big dropoff next to the hole, or something
like that.
Of course, this can often be done while others are preparing to putt,
so that you aren't slowing anything down.
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 23:04:44
From:
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
the reason for slow play can be attributed to the starter and shals,
they are not managing the pace of starts / play properly.
golfers on the course can be helpful too by staying awake, and
implementing features that are conducive to faster play.
dub it in for 4, 18 holes - 4.5 hours.
>m h o
> v =83e
>d w n =A0w / t h e =A0$ c a l p e r - u $ e =A0l e $ $ =A0g a $
>g a s o l i n e - $1.499 / gl.,, i s =A0a =A0f a i r =A0p r i c e
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 18:07:45
From: Tex
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> Tex <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> :
> : Chris Bellomy wrote:
> :> Tex <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> :> :
> :> : Bobby Knight wrote:
> :> :> On 11 Sep 2006 14:03:39 -0700, "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> :> :>
> :> :> >
> :> :>
> :> :> >
> :> :> >Ya know, this has merit...making Tex mad, or telling Tex he can't do
> :> :> >something always has a positive affect. Just ask the Farkturd Manager
> :> :> >at my first computer job that said I'd never make it without a
> :> :> >degree....20 yrs later I'm at the top of my field :)
> :> :>
> :> :> Bullshit. I'll bet you $5 Grand that you have a degree.
> :> :
> :> : you lose, where's my money :)
> :>
> :> No payment until you scan your non-degrees and send them to
> :> a neutral party for verification!
> :
> : I just faxed a blank piece of paper to Bill-O. He'll confirm it and
> : then Bobby can give me the 5 large.
>
> Bill-O, we're waiting to hear from you!
Bill-O, did I mention you get 50% of the 5 large? :-D
Tex
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 19:53:51
From: long&left
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
Tex wrote:
> Chris Bellomy wrote:
>> Tex <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>> :
>> : Chris Bellomy wrote:
>> :> Tex <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>> :> :
>> :> : Bobby Knight wrote:
>> :> :> On 11 Sep 2006 14:03:39 -0700, "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>> :> :>
>> :> :> >
>> :> :>
>> :> :> >
>> :> :> >Ya know, this has merit...making Tex mad, or telling Tex he can't do
>> :> :> >something always has a positive affect. Just ask the Farkturd Manager
>> :> :> >at my first computer job that said I'd never make it without a
>> :> :> >degree....20 yrs later I'm at the top of my field :)
>> :> :>
>> :> :> Bullshit. I'll bet you $5 Grand that you have a degree.
>> :> :
>> :> : you lose, where's my money :)
>> :>
>> :> No payment until you scan your non-degrees and send them to
>> :> a neutral party for verification!
>> :
>> : I just faxed a blank piece of paper to Bill-O. He'll confirm it and
>> : then Bobby can give me the 5 large.
>>
>> Bill-O, we're waiting to hear from you!
>
> Bill-O, did I mention you get 50% of the 5 large? :-D
>
> Tex
>
I think Bill-O is on the road again...wonder if he has a car fax?
:)
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 17:44:10
From: sjh
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
S McFarlane wrote:
> What has happened to golf? I can rush about my day at work. I don't really
> want to head out to the golf course to do more rushing. Maybe standards for
> play have changed since 1985 in other ways than the driving distance of
> so-so players. Back then, 18 holes in 4 hrs was good enough. I can't
> recall a time when such a pace caused any problems. I can't imagine how
> many dirty looks I'd get if I dared to play a 4 hr round these days.
I don't think it's any different 20 years ago, and if anything (since
I've been at it more during your long break), I'd have to say it's the
opposite of what you suggest. Golf has gotten slower.
It comes down to this- Regarding this subject there are two types of
player and it manifests itself in many ways. But basically, ones in
the slow camp just don't see "what the big deal is." I've heard those
in that camp say things like that, and furthermore that they've
allocated the whole day so they don't want to rush.
High handicap is not necessarily a factor. In fact, in a club with 4
or 5 flights- most of the guys in the 5 hour camp are usually in the
Championship flight and the last flight. That doesn't mean all of
them, and there still are some middle cap guys in the slow camp as
well. Most guys in the slow camp have no idea, and think they are
speedy gonzales.
So Scott, if I had to guess- you just notice it more now because you
are 20 years older and they say we all get more set in our ways (all of
us, not accusing you per se).
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 02:47:15
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
"sjh" <strat68@eudoramail.com > wrote in message
news:1158021850.380459.141300@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> So Scott, if I had to guess- you just notice it more now because you
> are 20 years older and they say we all get more set in our ways (all of
> us, not accusing you per se).
That could well be it. We also don't always remember 20 years ago quite as
it was...
Scott
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 17:25:08
From: dugjustdug
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
John van der Pflum wrote:
> One of the best damn posts of all time.
What he said. Great stuff. For a Dem :-P
Debbie and I have fallen in heavy like with an old style track 25 mi.
south of us. 6,300 yds with a 123 slope. Two long treks between
holes. We play as a 2-some right at 4 hours walking. Most everyone
else is riding, but, they don't seem to mind.
Compare to the high priced spread in town where most everyone rides,
they force 4-somes (to maximize the $$$ Almighty) and we rarely finish
in under 5 hours unless there's no one in front of us. Then, we're
usually done in 4:15 or so.
I think some tracks simply have an expectation of slow play and that's
the way it goes.
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 17:12:31
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
long&left wrote:
>
> or, he can have my new boat...
> :)
Hey not-so-brave Dave. You bettin or not??
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 19:53:01
From: long&left
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
Dene wrote:
> long&left wrote:
>
>> or, he can have my new boat...
>> :)
>
> Hey not-so-brave Dave. You bettin or not??
>
> -Greg
>
Hey Hotshot, I gave you the parameters...did you respond? If so, I
missed it...been a busy day
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 15:19:04
From: Tex
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> Tex <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> :
> : Bobby Knight wrote:
> :> On 11 Sep 2006 14:03:39 -0700, "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> >
> :>
> :> >
> :> >Ya know, this has merit...making Tex mad, or telling Tex he can't do
> :> >something always has a positive affect. Just ask the Farkturd Manager
> :> >at my first computer job that said I'd never make it without a
> :> >degree....20 yrs later I'm at the top of my field :)
> :>
> :> Bullshit. I'll bet you $5 Grand that you have a degree.
> :
> : you lose, where's my money :)
>
> No payment until you scan your non-degrees and send them to
> a neutral party for verification!
I just faxed a blank piece of paper to Bill-O. He'll confirm it and
then Bobby can give me the 5 large.
Tex
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 03:51:57
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
On 11-Sep-2006, "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
> I just faxed a blank piece of paper to Bill-O. He'll confirm it and
> then Bobby can give me the 5 large.
Yup, the paper is blank! :-P
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 00:41:48
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
Tex <ktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
:
: Chris Bellomy wrote:
: > Tex <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
: > :
: > : Bobby Knight wrote:
: > :> On 11 Sep 2006 14:03:39 -0700, "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
: > :>
: > :> >
: > :>
: > :> >
: > :> >Ya know, this has merit...making Tex mad, or telling Tex he can't do
: > :> >something always has a positive affect. Just ask the Farkturd Manager
: > :> >at my first computer job that said I'd never make it without a
: > :> >degree....20 yrs later I'm at the top of my field :)
: > :>
: > :> Bullshit. I'll bet you $5 Grand that you have a degree.
: > :
: > : you lose, where's my money :)
: >
: > No payment until you scan your non-degrees and send them to
: > a neutral party for verification!
:
: I just faxed a blank piece of paper to Bill-O. He'll confirm it and
: then Bobby can give me the 5 large.
Bill-O, we're waiting to hear from you!
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 03:53:34
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
On 11-Sep-2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
> Bill-O, we're waiting to hear from you!
Unlike you slackers that spend your bosses times posting on RSG, I actually
work!
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 05:10:34
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
bill-o <assimilate@borg.org > wrote:
:
: On 11-Sep-2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
:
: > Bill-O, we're waiting to hear from you!
:
: Unlike you slackers that spend your bosses times posting on RSG, I actually
: work!
What is this "boss" of which you speak?
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 03:20:46
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
On 12-Sep-2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
> What is this "boss" of which you speak?
not sure, but everyone tells me he's an ass
--
bill-o <-- self-employed
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 07:38:05
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> bill-o <assimilate@borg.org> wrote:
> :
> : On 11-Sep-2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
> :
> :> Bill-O, we're waiting to hear from you!
> :
> : Unlike you slackers that spend your bosses times posting on RSG, I actually
> : work!
>
> What is this "boss" of which you speak?
>
The "boss" is the person you get your money from! Notice I didn't say
the person who signs your pay check. Everybody has a boss.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 17:27:09
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
On 11 Sep 2006 15:19:04 -0700, "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>Chris Bellomy wrote:
>> Tex <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>> :
>> : Bobby Knight wrote:
>> :> On 11 Sep 2006 14:03:39 -0700, "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>> :>
>> :> >
>> :>
>> :> >
>> :> >Ya know, this has merit...making Tex mad, or telling Tex he can't do
>> :> >something always has a positive affect. Just ask the Farkturd Manager
>> :> >at my first computer job that said I'd never make it without a
>> :> >degree....20 yrs later I'm at the top of my field :)
>> :>
>> :> Bullshit. I'll bet you $5 Grand that you have a degree.
>> :
>> : you lose, where's my money :)
>>
>> No payment until you scan your non-degrees and send them to
>> a neutral party for verification!
>
>I just faxed a blank piece of paper to Bill-O. He'll confirm it and
>then Bobby can give me the 5 large.
>
>Tex
Damn, I could've sworn. What university didn't you graduate from?
No problem. You'll receive a blank check.
--
___,
\o
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 14:27:43
From: Tex
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On 11 Sep 2006 14:03:39 -0700, "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
> >Ya know, this has merit...making Tex mad, or telling Tex he can't do
> >something always has a positive affect. Just ask the Farkturd Manager
> >at my first computer job that said I'd never make it without a
> >degree....20 yrs later I'm at the top of my field :)
>
> Bullshit. I'll bet you $5 Grand that you have a degree.
you lose, where's my money :)
Tex
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 22:07:44
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
Tex <ktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
:
: Bobby Knight wrote:
: > On 11 Sep 2006 14:03:39 -0700, "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
: >
: > >
: >
: > >
: > >Ya know, this has merit...making Tex mad, or telling Tex he can't do
: > >something always has a positive affect. Just ask the Farkturd Manager
: > >at my first computer job that said I'd never make it without a
: > >degree....20 yrs later I'm at the top of my field :)
: >
: > Bullshit. I'll bet you $5 Grand that you have a degree.
:
: you lose, where's my money :)
No payment until you scan your non-degrees and send them to
a neutral party for verification!
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 14:03:39
From: Tex
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> Tex <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> : Chris Bellomy wrote:
> :
> :> I find that I'm learning to be adaptable to the pace, btw. In a
> :> situation like early morning at the Tribute, I can play no-nonsense
> :> line-it-up-and-hit-it golf quite comfortably (this has always been
> :> my preferred way to play, in fact). But I've learned to ratchet it
> :> down if the pace is slow -- I take practice swings to stay loose,
> :> I walk slower, I do whatever I can to make it so that my group
> :> just does keep up with the group ahead. I'd rather spend 12 minutes
> :> with a ball in play and 3 minutes waiting on the tee than 9 in play
> :> and 6 on the tee.
> :
> : I wish you could teach me! I'm bored after 4 hours...happens at most
> : (if not all) RSG events...except when I'm lucky enough to get in Thor's
> : group :-) One of the prime reasons why I gave up tournament play as
> : well. 5.5 hour rounds became to unbearable. Life is too short to
> : stand around doing nothing.
>
> I could loop for ya:
>
> CB: OK, when the green clears, you're 53 to the front, 64 to the pin.
> MK: Yeah, ok, can you move them off the green now?
> CB: Bush sucks.
> MK: What?
> CB: Bush is a liar and an idiot and should be sent to prison.
> MK: I think you need to shut the fuck up right about now, fuckhead!
> CB: What, you can't handle the truth?
> MK: I haven't heard a bit of truth out of your mouth yet, what
> would you know about truth?
> CB: Well why don't you tell me one thing I said that was false?
> MK: Your whole life is false, dickhead!
> CB: Green's clear. 8?
> MK: Yeah, I'll take the 8, thanks.
>
> ...
>
> CB: Pin high, very nice, I guess that distance I gave was truth, huh?
> MK: Here's some truth: shut up. And hand me the fuckin' putter already,
> I'm trying to play some golf here, you remember golf?
>
> Time would fly, and maybe my teeth as well. :)
Had I been drinking anything, it would have destroyed my flat panel :)
Ya know, this has merit...making Tex mad, or telling Tex he can't do
something always has a positive affect. Just ask the Farkturd Manager
at my first computer job that said I'd never make it without a
degree....20 yrs later I'm at the top of my field :)
Come to think of it, Pflum is the right kind of caddie for a job like
this, but he's a Repub...
Tex
|
| | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 03:41:31
From: rich
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
"Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1158008619.062250.219040@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Chris Bellomy wrote:
>> Tex <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>> : Chris Bellomy wrote:
>> :
>> :> I find that I'm learning to be adaptable to the pace, btw. In a
>> :> situation like early morning at the Tribute, I can play no-nonsense
>> :> line-it-up-and-hit-it golf quite comfortably (this has always been
>> :> my preferred way to play, in fact). But I've learned to ratchet it
>> :> down if the pace is slow -- I take practice swings to stay loose,
>> :> I walk slower, I do whatever I can to make it so that my group
>> :> just does keep up with the group ahead. I'd rather spend 12 minutes
>> :> with a ball in play and 3 minutes waiting on the tee than 9 in play
>> :> and 6 on the tee.
>> :
>> : I wish you could teach me! I'm bored after 4 hours...happens at most
>> : (if not all) RSG events...except when I'm lucky enough to get in Thor's
>> : group :-) One of the prime reasons why I gave up tournament play as
>> : well. 5.5 hour rounds became to unbearable. Life is too short to
>> : stand around doing nothing.
>>
>> I could loop for ya:
>>
>> CB: OK, when the green clears, you're 53 to the front, 64 to the pin.
>> MK: Yeah, ok, can you move them off the green now?
>> CB: Bush sucks.
>> MK: What?
>> CB: Bush is a liar and an idiot and should be sent to prison.
>> MK: I think you need to shut the fuck up right about now, fuckhead!
>> CB: What, you can't handle the truth?
>> MK: I haven't heard a bit of truth out of your mouth yet, what
>> would you know about truth?
>> CB: Well why don't you tell me one thing I said that was false?
>> MK: Your whole life is false, dickhead!
>> CB: Green's clear. 8?
>> MK: Yeah, I'll take the 8, thanks.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> CB: Pin high, very nice, I guess that distance I gave was truth, huh?
>> MK: Here's some truth: shut up. And hand me the fuckin' putter already,
>> I'm trying to play some golf here, you remember golf?
>>
>> Time would fly, and maybe my teeth as well. :)
>
> Had I been drinking anything, it would have destroyed my flat panel :)
>
> Ya know, this has merit...making Tex mad, or telling Tex he can't do
> something always has a positive affect. Just ask the Farkturd Manager
> at my first computer job that said I'd never make it without a
> degree....20 yrs later I'm at the top of my field :)
>
> Come to think of it, Pflum is the right kind of caddie for a job like
> this, but he's a Repub...
>
> Tex
Maybe people wouldn't top post if other people would snip?
Rich
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 08:26:46
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
On 11 Sep 2006 14:03:39 -0700, "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>Chris Bellomy wrote:
>> Tex <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>> : Chris Bellomy wrote:
>> :
>> :> I find that I'm learning to be adaptable to the pace, btw. In a
>> :> situation like early morning at the Tribute, I can play no-nonsense
>> :> line-it-up-and-hit-it golf quite comfortably (this has always been
>> :> my preferred way to play, in fact). But I've learned to ratchet it
>> :> down if the pace is slow -- I take practice swings to stay loose,
>> :> I walk slower, I do whatever I can to make it so that my group
>> :> just does keep up with the group ahead. I'd rather spend 12 minutes
>> :> with a ball in play and 3 minutes waiting on the tee than 9 in play
>> :> and 6 on the tee.
>> :
>> : I wish you could teach me! I'm bored after 4 hours...happens at most
>> : (if not all) RSG events...except when I'm lucky enough to get in Thor's
>> : group :-) One of the prime reasons why I gave up tournament play as
>> : well. 5.5 hour rounds became to unbearable. Life is too short to
>> : stand around doing nothing.
>>
>> I could loop for ya:
>>
>> CB: OK, when the green clears, you're 53 to the front, 64 to the pin.
>> MK: Yeah, ok, can you move them off the green now?
>> CB: Bush sucks.
>> MK: What?
>> CB: Bush is a liar and an idiot and should be sent to prison.
>> MK: I think you need to shut the fuck up right about now, fuckhead!
>> CB: What, you can't handle the truth?
>> MK: I haven't heard a bit of truth out of your mouth yet, what
>> would you know about truth?
>> CB: Well why don't you tell me one thing I said that was false?
>> MK: Your whole life is false, dickhead!
>> CB: Green's clear. 8?
>> MK: Yeah, I'll take the 8, thanks.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> CB: Pin high, very nice, I guess that distance I gave was truth, huh?
>> MK: Here's some truth: shut up. And hand me the fuckin' putter already,
>> I'm trying to play some golf here, you remember golf?
>>
>> Time would fly, and maybe my teeth as well. :)
>
>Had I been drinking anything, it would have destroyed my flat panel :)
>
>Ya know, this has merit...making Tex mad, or telling Tex he can't do
>something always has a positive affect. Just ask the Farkturd Manager
>at my first computer job that said I'd never make it without a
>degree....20 yrs later I'm at the top of my field :)
>
>Come to think of it, Pflum is the right kind of caddie for a job like
>this, but he's a Repub...
>
>Tex
Don't worry. I'm very good at playing the Devi's Advocate.
I think you are totally wrong on fiscal policy, k. Rich people
should play a LOT higher taxes. Afterall, they can afford it. ***
If we dont' do something soon about global warming great classic
courses like Pebble Beach and Kiawah are going to be under water from
the melting of the polar ice!!! And think of the hundreds of species
that will go extinct. ***
There are millions of people without medical insurance. We need to
have a national plan health insurance safety net plan so that those
people can get the health care they deserve. ***
*** IN NO WAY ARE THESE STATEMENTS INTENDED TO START ANY FORM OF
POLITICAL DISCUSSION. AFTERALL, THIS IS A GOLF GROUP. ANY DOFFUS WHO
DECIDES TO TAKE IT UPON HIM/HERSELF TO START A POLITICAL DISCUSSION
BASED ON THE ABOVE STATEMENTS SHOULD FEEL SHAME.
--
jvdp
Paging Mike Plowinske. You are on the tee Sept 16.
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 16:11:54
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
On 11 Sep 2006 14:03:39 -0700, "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>
>Ya know, this has merit...making Tex mad, or telling Tex he can't do
>something always has a positive affect. Just ask the Farkturd Manager
>at my first computer job that said I'd never make it without a
>degree....20 yrs later I'm at the top of my field :)
Bullshit. I'll bet you $5 Grand that you have a degree.
--
___,
\o
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 16:50:48
From: long&left
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On 11 Sep 2006 14:03:39 -0700, "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>> Ya know, this has merit...making Tex mad, or telling Tex he can't do
>> something always has a positive affect. Just ask the Farkturd Manager=
>> at my first computer job that said I'd never make it without a
>> degree....20 yrs later I'm at the top of my field :)
>=20
> Bullshit. I'll bet you $5 Grand that you have a degree. =20
> --
> ___, =20
> \o =20
>
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 13:21:03
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
presnippage....
The big reasons for slow play are:
postsnippage...
#1 reason for slow play is people looking for balls and not letting the
group behind play through. Let 'em play through, and the caravan keeps
moving, you just move down a spot...but we can't get that anymore, so
when groups stop on say 4, 9, 14 and 17 to look for alls, everone
waits, then someone on 11 has to look for a ball...and the wait goes
on!
Now an old fella like me can recall the good old glory days of golf
when people waved the group behind through when they stopped to look
for a ball...back in the days when people walked...actually played
golf...
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 22:17:39
From: warren montgomery
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
> #1 reason for slow play is people looking for balls and not letting the
> group behind play through. Let 'em play through, and the caravan keeps
> moving, you just move down a spot...but we can't get that anymore, so
> when groups stop on say 4, 9, 14 and 17 to look for alls, everone
> waits, then someone on 11 has to look for a ball...and the wait goes
> on!
>
Actually if someone is hunting balls on 4 or 5 holes something else is
wrong -- either the golfers aren't paying attention to where they are
hitting or they are playing a course that's way too hard. I rarely spend
more than 30 seconds looking for a ball. If you pay attention to where it
goes and line it up you will find it pretty quick in any reasonable lie. If
you have been paying attention and can't find it quickly you probably
wouldn't want to play it anyway, so why bother looking?
--
Warren Montgomery (wamontgomery@att.net)
http://home.att.net/~wamontgomery
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 02:32:42
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
On 11 Sep 2006 13:21:03 -0700, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:
>#1 reason for slow play is people looking for balls and not letting the
>group behind play through. Let 'em play through, and the caravan keeps
>moving, you just move down a spot...but we can't get that anymore, so
>when groups stop on say 4, 9, 14 and 17 to look for alls, everone
>waits, then someone on 11 has to look for a ball...and the wait goes
>on!
>
>Now an old fella like me can recall the good old glory days of golf
>when people waved the group behind through when they stopped to look
>for a ball...back in the days when people walked...actually played
>golf...
Letting people play through doesn't work with overcrowded courses.
There isn't any "through" available.
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 13:19:25
From: Tex
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> Tex <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> :
> : Chris Bellomy wrote:
> :> S McFarlane <skottymac@verizon.net> wrote:
> :>
> :> : What has happened to golf? I can rush about my day at work. I don't really
> :> : want to head out to the golf course to do more rushing. Maybe standards for
> :> : play have changed since 1985 in other ways than the driving distance of
> :> : so-so players. Back then, 18 holes in 4 hrs was good enough. I can't
> :> : recall a time when such a pace caused any problems. I can't imagine how
> :> : many dirty looks I'd get if I dared to play a 4 hr round these days.
> :>
> :> 4 hour rounds at some courses around here would get you named
> :> king for life if you could make that happen. I can't *ever*
> :> remember a 4 hour pace being problematic.
> :
> : Maybe that's why my group gets first off wherever we go :) We just
> : averaged 3:10 this weekend...I think both times the group behind
> : finished 3 holes back...they never keep up :)
>
> Braggart! ;)
>
> But you know what I mean... there are groups like yours that make
> damn sure to get out early so you don't end up waiting on every
> shot, but that's because you have to get out early to do that. :/
Yes, and course operators love us...send us off first and just tell
everyone else to keep up :)
> I find that I'm learning to be adaptable to the pace, btw. In a
> situation like early morning at the Tribute, I can play no-nonsense
> line-it-up-and-hit-it golf quite comfortably (this has always been
> my preferred way to play, in fact). But I've learned to ratchet it
> down if the pace is slow -- I take practice swings to stay loose,
> I walk slower, I do whatever I can to make it so that my group
> just does keep up with the group ahead. I'd rather spend 12 minutes
> with a ball in play and 3 minutes waiting on the tee than 9 in play
> and 6 on the tee.
I wish you could teach me! I'm bored after 4 hours...happens at most
(if not all) RSG events...except when I'm lucky enough to get in Thor's
group :-) One of the prime reasons why I gave up tournament play as
well. 5.5 hour rounds became to unbearable. Life is too short to
stand around doing nothing.
Tex
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 20:53:46
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
Tex <ktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
: Chris Bellomy wrote:
:
: > I find that I'm learning to be adaptable to the pace, btw. In a
: > situation like early morning at the Tribute, I can play no-nonsense
: > line-it-up-and-hit-it golf quite comfortably (this has always been
: > my preferred way to play, in fact). But I've learned to ratchet it
: > down if the pace is slow -- I take practice swings to stay loose,
: > I walk slower, I do whatever I can to make it so that my group
: > just does keep up with the group ahead. I'd rather spend 12 minutes
: > with a ball in play and 3 minutes waiting on the tee than 9 in play
: > and 6 on the tee.
:
: I wish you could teach me! I'm bored after 4 hours...happens at most
: (if not all) RSG events...except when I'm lucky enough to get in Thor's
: group :-) One of the prime reasons why I gave up tournament play as
: well. 5.5 hour rounds became to unbearable. Life is too short to
: stand around doing nothing.
I could loop for ya:
CB: OK, when the green clears, you're 53 to the front, 64 to the pin.
MK: Yeah, ok, can you move them off the green now?
CB: Bush sucks.
MK: What?
CB: Bush is a liar and an idiot and should be sent to prison.
MK: I think you need to shut the fuck up right about now, fuckhead!
CB: What, you can't handle the truth?
MK: I haven't heard a bit of truth out of your mouth yet, what
would you know about truth?
CB: Well why don't you tell me one thing I said that was false?
MK: Your whole life is false, dickhead!
CB: Green's clear. 8?
MK: Yeah, I'll take the 8, thanks.
...
CB: Pin high, very nice, I guess that distance I gave was truth, huh?
MK: Here's some truth: shut up. And hand me the fuckin' putter already,
I'm trying to play some golf here, you remember golf?
Time would fly, and maybe my teeth as well. :)
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 16:58:39
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
On 11 Sep 2006 20:53:46 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>Tex <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>: Chris Bellomy wrote:
>:
>:> I find that I'm learning to be adaptable to the pace, btw. In a
>:> situation like early morning at the Tribute, I can play no-nonsense
>:> line-it-up-and-hit-it golf quite comfortably (this has always been
>:> my preferred way to play, in fact). But I've learned to ratchet it
>:> down if the pace is slow -- I take practice swings to stay loose,
>:> I walk slower, I do whatever I can to make it so that my group
>:> just does keep up with the group ahead. I'd rather spend 12 minutes
>:> with a ball in play and 3 minutes waiting on the tee than 9 in play
>:> and 6 on the tee.
>:
>: I wish you could teach me! I'm bored after 4 hours...happens at most
>: (if not all) RSG events...except when I'm lucky enough to get in Thor's
>: group :-) One of the prime reasons why I gave up tournament play as
>: well. 5.5 hour rounds became to unbearable. Life is too short to
>: stand around doing nothing.
>
>I could loop for ya:
>
>CB: OK, when the green clears, you're 53 to the front, 64 to the pin.
>MK: Yeah, ok, can you move them off the green now?
>CB: Bush sucks.
>MK: What?
>CB: Bush is a liar and an idiot and should be sent to prison.
>MK: I think you need to shut the fuck up right about now, fuckhead!
>CB: What, you can't handle the truth?
>MK: I haven't heard a bit of truth out of your mouth yet, what
> would you know about truth?
>CB: Well why don't you tell me one thing I said that was false?
>MK: Your whole life is false, dickhead!
>CB: Green's clear. 8?
>MK: Yeah, I'll take the 8, thanks.
>
>...
>
>CB: Pin high, very nice, I guess that distance I gave was truth, huh?
>MK: Here's some truth: shut up. And hand me the fuckin' putter already,
> I'm trying to play some golf here, you remember golf?
>
>Time would fly, and maybe my teeth as well. :)
One of the best damn posts of all time.
--
jvdp
Paging Mike Plowinske. You are on the tee Sept 16.
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 17:16:54
From: carl llewellyn
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
The courses in my area say 4-4 1/4 houes is what 18 holes should be
played when the course is busy.
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 06:43:02
From: Thor
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
Matt wrote:
> a round thats WAYYYYY too fucking long to be on the golf course. My course
> is a links style with a lot of heather. We play it as a lateral hazard to
> try to increase the speed of play, but that doesnt work. Golfer one will
> hit his ball into the heather, spend forever looking for it, drop a new
> ball, then hit his next one into the heather and spend another 5 minutes
> looking. Its a very common theme at my course.
This is why gorse is so awesome... you can't go in there to
search for it without risking severe bodily harm.
--
-- David "Thor" Collard
-- My It is golf.
-- 11th annual RSG-Ohio Sept 15-17 2006
-- Join us - send mail to host REMOVE at SPAM rsgohio SPAM dot SPAM com
|
| | |
Date: 19 Sep 2006 15:35:55
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
"Thor" <thorpub@rsgohio.com > writes:
> Matt wrote:
> > a round thats WAYYYYY too fucking long to be on the golf course. My course
> > is a links style with a lot of heather. We play it as a lateral hazard to
> > try to increase the speed of play, but that doesnt work. Golfer one will
> > hit his ball into the heather, spend forever looking for it, drop a new
> > ball, then hit his next one into the heather and spend another 5 minutes
> > looking. Its a very common theme at my course.
>
> This is why gorse is so awesome... you can't go in there to
> search for it without risking severe bodily harm.
I played your favorite gorse-covered course twice on Sunday. We
(3 of us) finished the second round in 2:50 because we had to
wait to play our tee shots and approaches on 18.
I think the first 18 on the big course took about 3:30
and the 18 on The Struie took about that long too.
I'm glad to read that RSG-OH went well.
--
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 06:40:39
From: Tex
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
warren montgomery wrote:
> > Maybe Scotland is quicker, but the rest of the UK follows a pretty
> > brisk pace. I played in a medal a few weeks ago and one of the other
> > guys was complaining that his last medal took nearly 4 hours. Generally
> > we finish in about 3 1/2. That's a 3 ball, playing in a strokeplay
> > competition, all walking and everyone playing off the back tees.
> > Handicaps ranging from 0 to 28. I think some players have just got
> > used to the idea of playing slowly and feel rushed when moving at a
> > sensible speed. If I was playing on my own, I could get round in less
> > than 2 1/2 hours, just walking at a normal speed and taking the normal
> > time over shots. Even with a four ball, I can't imagine feeling rushed
> > on a 4 hour pace.
> >
> I MUST go to the UK some day to play!
Everyone must once in their life :) Except those that can't walk...or
those that think 4.5 hours is a good pace....
I will always remember playing Cruden Bay with Dan King and 2 local
members. One of them was Nick, a nice 70 yr old...we played the first
18 holes in 3 hours, and we turned right around and went back out and
played it again in 3 hours. Nick barely broke a sweat and was never
slowed down from the pace....for those of you that don't know, Cruden
Bay has some of the most severe inclines you will find in Scotland....
The "secret" to the pace is to walk briskly to your shot, be prepared
to hit when it's your turn, tell your jokes/stories over a beer when
finished and above all, don't think you can hit like the pros, that's
why you work for a living and they play golf for a living.
Tex
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 06:20:48
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
S McFarlane wrote:
[snip]
> I've recently got back into the game after a _long_ absence (~1985!).
> Besides the fact that extremely mediocre players can now regularly hit
> drives in the > 270 yd range, the biggest change I've seen is the big hurry
> on the course. Since I've restarted, I've played a few rounds in about 3
> 1/2 - 3 3/4 hrs walking the course. \
Can you please tell me where so I can play there.
> By my frame of reference, that's
> exceptionally fast. But in the rounds I'm thinking of, I had to let about 4
> groups play through, a few not at all friendly due to the 'slow' pace. My
> enjoyment of the game and surroundings was definitely lessened by having
> some uptight twosome on my tail for most of the round.
A twosome behind a 4some is always going to be a problem,
all other things being equal. When I'm in a 2some behind a 4some,
if they are on pace, I take specific steps to avoid pushing them.
Unless there is going to be a chance to play through, there's just
no point.
> What has happened to golf? I can rush about my day at work. I don't really
> want to head out to the golf course to do more rushing.
Okay, but 18 holes in more than 4 hours is hardly "rushing". With
no
one in my way, and playing with one other person, I can easily play
18 holes in 3 hours without rushing at all. I'll putt everything out,
I'll
take my 5 minutes to search for lost balls. I'll go back to the tee to
re-tee for a OB ball and I'll still get done in basically 3 hours. In
a
foursome I can lazily play in 3.5 hours. So if you are taking more
than
4 hours to play, you're doing something other than playing golf. Now,
as some point out, on certain courses that "something" might be
walking, if tees and greens are widely separated. But when I get
"stuck" behind slow groups my usual observation is that they are
doing alot of things besides playing golf. They are talking, chatting
up the cart girl, looking at each others equipment, watching other
people play their shot, staring off into space, and "replaying" the
last shot in their heads, everything except getting ready to take
their next shot. When on the golf course, play golf. Play with each
others drivers at the range. Flirt with women at the bar. Talk about
last night escapades at the 19th hole. On the tee, tee off. On the
green, putt.
[snip]
> Clueless on the green is IMHO definitely not the most irritating. Clueless
> in the whole point of the best game ever definitely is. It's not a race.
4 hours is hardly "racing". Folks who truly "race" do it in under
2
hours. 4 hours is 13 minutes a hole. It's almost 3 minutes per shot.
What the heck are you doing for 3 minutes?
> So, IMO, the #1 reason for slow play is: People who have unrealistic
> expectations as to how fast they can squeeze a round into their busy
> schedule. IM further O, people hampered by this fault should really
> consider taking up another hobby, something they might enjoy more. The
> brokering of stocks and bonds comes to mind.
I could as easily say that folks who want to stand around in short
grass should go to a park. If you go to the "home" of golf, 4 hours
will probably get you asked to pick up and move forward. 3.5 is
all it should take, all other things being equal.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 02:36:38
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com > wrote in message
news:1157980848.009622.87540@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>S McFarlane wrote:
> [snip]
>> I've recently got back into the game after a _long_ absence (~1985!).
>> Besides the fact that extremely mediocre players can now regularly hit
>> drives in the > 270 yd range, the biggest change I've seen is the big
>> hurry
>> on the course. Since I've restarted, I've played a few rounds in about 3
>> 1/2 - 3 3/4 hrs walking the course. \
>
> Can you please tell me where so I can play there.
Dallas area. Both courses I've played since starting.
>
>> By my frame of reference, that's
>> exceptionally fast. But in the rounds I'm thinking of, I had to let
>> about 4
>> groups play through, a few not at all friendly due to the 'slow' pace.
>> My
>> enjoyment of the game and surroundings was definitely lessened by having
>> some uptight twosome on my tail for most of the round.
>
> A twosome behind a 4some is always going to be a problem,
> all other things being equal. When I'm in a 2some behind a 4some,
> if they are on pace, I take specific steps to avoid pushing them.
> Unless there is going to be a chance to play through, there's just
> no point.
Sounds reasonable to me. And if I'm in a anysome and a group is obviously
waiting for us, I'll begin looking for opportunities for them to play up
without either group being too inconvenienced.
> Okay, but 18 holes in more than 4 hours is hardly "rushing". With
> no
> one in my way, and playing with one other person, I can easily play
> 18 holes in 3 hours without rushing at all. I'll putt everything out,
> I'll
> take my 5 minutes to search for lost balls. I'll go back to the tee to
> re-tee for a OB ball and I'll still get done in basically 3 hours. In
> a
> foursome I can lazily play in 3.5 hours. So if you are taking more
> than
> 4 hours to play, you're doing something other than playing golf.
Agreed. Over 4 hours always has and will be a slow pace. But as I said,
the rounds in question were on a 3.5 - 3.75 hour pace. I don't see that as
slow, and there's really not much time for fooling around at that pace
walking. For example, I never look for a ball for 5 minutes. That may be
the rules protocol, but unless there's no one in sight behind you, that's
really unduly slowing things down. I suppose my point is that a group
coming in under 4 hours shouldn't be feeling like they're playing slow.
More rounds than not this year, that's been the feel of it. All rounds so
far this year have finished comfortably short of 4 hours.
Now,
> as some point out, on certain courses that "something" might be
> walking, if tees and greens are widely separated. But when I get
> "stuck" behind slow groups my usual observation is that they are
> doing alot of things besides playing golf. They are talking, chatting
> up the cart girl, looking at each others equipment, watching other
> people play their shot, staring off into space, and "replaying" the
> last shot in their heads, everything except getting ready to take
> their next shot. When on the golf course, play golf. Play with each
> others drivers at the range. Flirt with women at the bar. Talk about
> last night escapades at the 19th hole. On the tee, tee off. On the
> green, putt.
Agreed. And, IMO, if a player is doing none of these things, takes around
30 seconds a shot when it's his/her turn, doesn't look for balls that are
obviously lost causes, finishes with a reasonable score (say 95)., they
should not feel rushed by their fellow golfers for a good portion of the
round. A single in a cart once in awhile is no big deal. No one should get
uptight about letting the occasional player go through. That's just common
courtesy. But when you're playing at a 3.5 hour pace, it really sucks to
do so 4 or 5 times in one round. It's even worse when some of them are
asses about it. .
> [snip]
>> Clueless on the green is IMHO definitely not the most irritating.
>> Clueless
>> in the whole point of the best game ever definitely is. It's not a race.
>
> 4 hours is hardly "racing". Folks who truly "race" do it in under
> 2
> hours.
If you're pushing up against someone who's playing well under 4 hours, and
are out of sight within a few holes, you probably are on about a 2 hour
pace. That's great when you can manage it. I'm certainly not against
people playing as fast as they wish and can. On the other hand, if someone
_expects_ to play a 2 hour pace, then their expectation is unreasonable.
There is a balance in this, and maybe the course management is to blame when
that balance gets way out of whack. They are definitely to blame when the
shalls aren't out enforcing a reasonable pace. I've also seen a lot of
really slow groups since starting back up. That hasn't changed in the last
20 years. But the shalls (who are now apparently called 'ambassadors')
never seem to have anything to say to them. That definitely is new.
Only a jerk would refuse to let someone play through that's clearly playing
faster than they are, even if they are maintaining a good pace. On the
other hand, that person could not be blamed for being a little irritated
after stopping to let the fourth or fifth 'group' of the day play through.
The starter on those days obviously allowed a quick succession of singles
and twosomes to go off. That seems like a bad idea to me.
This has only happened a few times, and it may be due to the low volume of
golfers on the course more than anything (I've walked on all 13 rounds
played so far without waiting more than 5 minutes!) From the responses so
far, it seems that it may have been an aberration.
> 4 hours is 13 minutes a hole. It's almost 3 minutes per shot.
> What the heck are you doing for 3 minutes?
Walking. _If_ I walked a 4 hour round, that would be around 1 mile / hr,
assuming I never hit a golf ball and only walked the centerlines. Most
people (and certainly most golfers) couldn't walk a 4 1/4 mile course much
over 2.5 miles / hr with a bag on their back. Taking a wee moment for each
shot (not to mention those of others in the group) probably accounts for the
difference. Maybe walking courses is going the way of the dinosaur. That
is not such a good trend, but that's just my opinion.
>
>> So, IMO, the #1 reason for slow play is: People who have unrealistic
>> expectations as to how fast they can squeeze a round into their busy
>> schedule. IM further O, people hampered by this fault should really
>> consider taking up another hobby, something they might enjoy more. The
>> brokering of stocks and bonds comes to mind.
>
> I could as easily say that folks who want to stand around in short
> grass should go to a park. If you go to the "home" of golf, 4 hours
> will probably get you asked to pick up and move forward. 3.5 is
> all it should take, all other things being equal.
I don't live in Scotland. So the pace there isn't really an issue for me.
If I go there, I'll continue my usual 3 1/2 hour pace and there won't be any
issues. Has the 4 hour standard in America been changed? I've seen it on
one scorecard recently, and the GPS system on another course seemed to be
tuned to 4 hours. That's not a st ass question, if it happens to sound
like one. I'm honestly curious to know if I've got it wrong.
By the way, reading my last bit from the previous post again, it comes off a
lot more acidic than it was intended. I suppose what should be said instead
is that golfers on both extremes of the pace of play spectrum should be
considerate of other players. All I hear is bitching about slow play.
True, I have seen more of that than overly fast play. However, it is
possible to be an ass while playing a fast pace. For example, twice a
twosome has hit into my group off the tee. That would have been asinine
even if we were playing slow (we were well within a 4 hour pace).
Here's a good rule of etiquette : Never hit into a group that is playing
under a 4 hour pace, and never hit the ball back at a group if you're
playing over a 4 1/2 hour pace...
Scott
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 02:52:09
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
S McFarlane <skottymac@verizon.net > wrote:
:
: <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com > wrote in message
: news:1157980848.009622.87540@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
: >S McFarlane wrote:
: > [snip]
: >> I've recently got back into the game after a _long_ absence (~1985!).
: >> Besides the fact that extremely mediocre players can now regularly hit
: >> drives in the > 270 yd range, the biggest change I've seen is the big
: >> hurry
: >> on the course. Since I've restarted, I've played a few rounds in about 3
: >> 1/2 - 3 3/4 hrs walking the course. \
: >
: > Can you please tell me where so I can play there.
:
: Dallas area. Both courses I've played since starting.
Which are those? I'm really curious now!
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 02:57:26
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3f7sa6IqlcN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
>
> Which are those? I'm really curious now!
>
Over on the east side of town: Firewheel in Garland and Waterview in
Rowlett. From the courses you've mentioned so far, you probably would be
disappointed in the course quality. The Bridges at Firewheel is probably in
the best shape, but avoid the boring "Traditional" nine over there. None of
them are anywhere near Tour 18 or the Tribute.
Scott
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 22:14:47
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 02:57:26 GMT, "S McFarlane"
<skottymac@verizon.net > wrote:
>
>"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
>news:0T3f7sa6IqlcN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
>>
>> Which are those? I'm really curious now!
>>
>
>Over on the east side of town: Firewheel in Garland and Waterview in
>Rowlett. From the courses you've mentioned so far, you probably would be
>disappointed in the course quality. The Bridges at Firewheel is probably in
>the best shape, but avoid the boring "Traditional" nine over there. None of
>them are anywhere near Tour 18 or the Tribute.
>
>Scott
>
You might try Woodbridge in Wylie on 78, it used to be in really good
shape. Not too far from Firewheel courses.
___,
\o
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 03:07:18
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
S McFarlane <skottymac@verizon.net > wrote:
:
: "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
: news:0T3f7sa6IqlcN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
: >
: > Which are those? I'm really curious now!
:
: Over on the east side of town: Firewheel in Garland and Waterview in
: Rowlett. From the courses you've mentioned so far, you probably would be
: disappointed in the course quality. The Bridges at Firewheel is probably in
: the best shape, but avoid the boring "Traditional" nine over there. None of
: them are anywhere near Tour 18 or the Tribute.
That's ok, I'm happy with the likes of Sherrill Park and Cedar
Crest, too, even though I am based in Fort Worth and more
typically play tracks like Pecan Valley and Squaw Creek.
I gotta tell you, though, I have *never* seen Sherrill Park
(which is closest to Firewheel) moving as briskly as you
describe, and I've walked there several times. I think maybe
you just had the misfortune of getting in front of some assholes.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 08:15:53
From: warren montgomery
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
> I disagree. The big reasons for slow play are:
> 1. Too many people on the course.
> 2. People who are not ready to hit when it's their turn to play.
> 3. People who move slowly.
>
> Clueless on the green is the most irritating."
>
You've hit the high points. Most of the other things (e.g. lengthy pre-shot
routines and sitting on your ass in the cart when you should be getting
ready to play) are just part of number 2. Number 1 is mainly due to course
operators who think they can squeeze in more rounds by letting people off
the first tee every 7 minutes. Making anything under 10 minutes work on
most courses requires a lot of help (like spotting balls for players on
problem hols or having groups hit up on long par 3's
>
> I've recently got back into the game after a _long_ absence (~1985!).
> Besides the fact that extremely mediocre players can now regularly hit
> drives in the > 270 yd range, the biggest change I've seen is the big
> hurry on the course. Since I've restarted, I've played a few rounds in
> about 3 1/2 - 3 3/4 hrs walking the course. By my frame of reference,
> that's exceptionally fast. But in the rounds I'm thinking of, I had to
> let about 4 groups play through, a few not at all friendly due to the
> 'slow' pace. My enjoyment of the game and surroundings was definitely
> lessened by having some uptight twosome on my tail for most of the round.
>
You are probably outside the norm in most places but maybe not around here.
If you were off since 1985, for one thing you were probably used to most
people walking. Somewhere between 1990 and 2000 riding in carts became the
norm. One of the worst problems I think that creates is that cart play is
often a "hurry up and wait" pace. It can be very disconcerting playing
walking and having a twosome in a cart appear on your tail because although
they don't usually play any faster than a twosome walking on average, they
cover the distance from tee to fairway much faster than you can and surprise
you. On most courses you won't be bothered by "uptight towsomes" during
peak times, but midweek a lot of people are trying to sneak in a quick 9
before work or play 18 in half a day, and often playing in small groups.
It's no big deal most places as long as everyone is courteous. If that
twosome is really that much faster, waive them up on a par 3 and odds are
they will finish the hole and be out of the way on the next tee before you
are ready to hit. I've played through this way a lot of times and never
held anyone up more than the time they waited for me and my partner to hit
at the green (and at that I'm walking with a bad leg and playing through
people in carts). Some folks do get uptight if they are being held up for
seveal holes and the group ahead doesn't seem to even notice them.
To answer the main question -- what's too slow for me is a round where I
spend a signficant amount of time waiting for the group ahead. The pace
that corresponds to depends on the course and the size of the group I'm in.
In a twosome on an easy or familiar course anything much over 3 hours is
going to feel slow, but I've played in foursomes on a difficult and
unfamiliar course where 5 hours didn't feel too bad. Another thing that may
have changed in the last 20 years is just the degree to which people are
playing on their "home" course and know other players. On my home course
the regular players all know eachother and know who is fast and who isn't
and easily sort themselves out. (That's most apparent on a day like
yesterday, where early morning rain threw out the tee time sheet as all of
us die hards waited around the clubhouse for it to let up. When the rain
lightened to a drizzle the groups started off in order of how fast they
normally played indpendent of what the original tee times were and everyone
was happy with the result.)
>
> So, IMO, the #1 reason for slow play is: People who have unrealistic
> expectations as to how fast they can squeeze a round into their busy
> schedule. IM further O, people hampered by this fault should really
> consider taking up another hobby, something they might enjoy more. The
> brokering of stocks and bonds comes to mind.
>
I'd disagree. I'm not playing any faster now than I was 20 or even 40 years
ago. Of course as I said above a lot of what's reasonable depends on the
course, and I usually play courses much like the ones I was playing 20 and
40 years ago. Recently built courses often have features that slow things
down -- courses with lots of artificial mounding, which means lots of shots
land out of sight and take crazy bounces where they are hard to find,
courses that are brutally long (don't kid yourself that hackers really hit
it 270. The only guys I see doing that are low single digit handicappers
who play every day. Others think they do and every once in a while cork
one, but most of those long drives land 2 fairways away), and courses with a
lot of wetlands where again people waste time looking for balls. Playing in
carts when you can't get the cart into the area your ball went is another
great way to slow down play and lots of newer courses impose that particular
problem on a lot of players. Playing a 4 hour round even as a twosome on
some of these monstrosities is unrealistic, but people don't have any more
time than in the past and will want to do it.
--
Warren Montgomery (wamontgomery@att.net)
http://home.att.net/~wamontgomery
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 05:53:27
From: Tex
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> S McFarlane <skottymac@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> : What has happened to golf? I can rush about my day at work. I don't really
> : want to head out to the golf course to do more rushing. Maybe standards for
> : play have changed since 1985 in other ways than the driving distance of
> : so-so players. Back then, 18 holes in 4 hrs was good enough. I can't
> : recall a time when such a pace caused any problems. I can't imagine how
> : many dirty looks I'd get if I dared to play a 4 hr round these days.
>
> 4 hour rounds at some courses around here would get you named
> king for life if you could make that happen. I can't *ever*
> remember a 4 hour pace being problematic.
Maybe that's why my group gets first off wherever we go :) We just
averaged 3:10 this weekend...I think both times the group behind
finished 3 holes back...they never keep up :)
Tex
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 16:02:03
From: Tex
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On 11 Sep 2006 15:19:04 -0700, "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Chris Bellomy wrote:
> >> Tex <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> :
> >> : Bobby Knight wrote:
> >> :> On 11 Sep 2006 14:03:39 -0700, "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> :>
> >> :> >
> >> :>
> >> :> >
> >> :> >Ya know, this has merit...making Tex mad, or telling Tex he can't do
> >> :> >something always has a positive affect. Just ask the Farkturd Manager
> >> :> >at my first computer job that said I'd never make it without a
> >> :> >degree....20 yrs later I'm at the top of my field :)
> >> :>
> >> :> Bullshit. I'll bet you $5 Grand that you have a degree.
> >> :
> >> : you lose, where's my money :)
> >>
> >> No payment until you scan your non-degrees and send them to
> >> a neutral party for verification!
> >
> >I just faxed a blank piece of paper to Bill-O. He'll confirm it and
> >then Bobby can give me the 5 large.
> >
> >Tex
> Damn, I could've sworn. What university didn't you graduate from?
> No problem. You'll receive a blank check.
No problem, just sign it, I'll fill in the rest :)
Tex
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 19:53:48
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
Tex <ktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
:
: Chris Bellomy wrote:
: > S McFarlane <skottymac@verizon.net> wrote:
: >
: > : What has happened to golf? I can rush about my day at work. I don't really
: > : want to head out to the golf course to do more rushing. Maybe standards for
: > : play have changed since 1985 in other ways than the driving distance of
: > : so-so players. Back then, 18 holes in 4 hrs was good enough. I can't
: > : recall a time when such a pace caused any problems. I can't imagine how
: > : many dirty looks I'd get if I dared to play a 4 hr round these days.
: >
: > 4 hour rounds at some courses around here would get you named
: > king for life if you could make that happen. I can't *ever*
: > remember a 4 hour pace being problematic.
:
: Maybe that's why my group gets first off wherever we go :) We just
: averaged 3:10 this weekend...I think both times the group behind
: finished 3 holes back...they never keep up :)
Braggart! ;)
But you know what I mean... there are groups like yours that make
damn sure to get out early so you don't end up waiting on every
shot, but that's because you have to get out early to do that. :/
I find that I'm learning to be adaptable to the pace, btw. In a
situation like early morning at the Tribute, I can play no-nonsense
line-it-up-and-hit-it golf quite comfortably (this has always been
my preferred way to play, in fact). But I've learned to ratchet it
down if the pace is slow -- I take practice swings to stay loose,
I walk slower, I do whatever I can to make it so that my group
just does keep up with the group ahead. I'd rather spend 12 minutes
with a ball in play and 3 minutes waiting on the tee than 9 in play
and 6 on the tee.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 05:37:32
From: cja
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
Simon wrote:
> I find that you can spot slow players before they play a single shot.
> They take ages getting their stuff our of the car, walk to the tee
> really slowly and take forever finding their pencils, gloves, balls,
> etc. in their bag.
>
Being deliberate like this can be useful. I find that after an intense
day at work, and/or rushing through traffic to get to the course, I
need to slow things down, take time getting ready, so that I don't end
up rushing my swing. That doesn't mean I play slowly, it just helps me
to have a good swing tempo. I won't waste time getting to my ball, and
I'm ready to play when it's my turn, I just don't want to rush my
swing.
I think practice swings are a good indicator of a slow player. People
who most need practice off the course usually take the most practice
swings on the course, where they do little or no good. But, you don't
have to be a good player to be a fast player. On normal, full shots I
usually don't take a practice swing. If I need to curve the ball
around a tree, hit out of the rough, or have a feel shot near the
green, I may take a few.
Most people here would be horrified at the pace of play in my Thursday
night league. With 9-hole handicaps ranging from 0 to 27, and about 30
2-player teams in 4-ball matches, a 9-hole match usually takes about 3
hours, sometimes longer. 18-hole rounds at courses around here (Boston
area) on any given Saturday morning, for example, are likely to take
between 4 and 5 hours.
- cja
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 05:09:14
From: Simon
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> S McFarlane <skottymac@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> : What has happened to golf? I can rush about my day at work. I don't really
> : want to head out to the golf course to do more rushing. Maybe standards for
> : play have changed since 1985 in other ways than the driving distance of
> : so-so players. Back then, 18 holes in 4 hrs was good enough. I can't
> : recall a time when such a pace caused any problems. I can't imagine how
> : many dirty looks I'd get if I dared to play a 4 hr round these days.
>
> 4 hour rounds at some courses around here would get you named
> king for life if you could make that happen. I can't *ever*
> remember a 4 hour pace being problematic.
>
> I submit that you're playing someplace well outside the American
> norm for pace of play. For instance, 4 hours in Scotland wouldn't
> go over well at all. But on our side of the pond, that's a coveted
> pace almost anywhere.
>
Maybe Scotland is quicker, but the rest of the UK follows a pretty
brisk pace. I played in a medal a few weeks ago and one of the other
guys was complaining that his last medal took nearly 4 hours. Generally
we finish in about 3 1/2. That's a 3 ball, playing in a strokeplay
competition, all walking and everyone playing off the back tees.
Handicaps ranging from 0 to 28. I think some players have just got
used to the idea of playing slowly and feel rushed when moving at a
sensible speed. If I was playing on my own, I could get round in less
than 2 1/2 hours, just walking at a normal speed and taking the normal
time over shots. Even with a four ball, I can't imagine feeling rushed
on a 4 hour pace.
I find that you can spot slow players before they play a single shot.
They take ages getting their stuff our of the car, walk to the tee
really slowly and take forever finding their pencils, gloves, balls,
etc. in their bag.
Time on the green is a curious thing. I guess that I (and most others
at my club) size up shots pretty quickly. If that's the way you play,
then you'll get it right more often with your quick first impression
than if you reanalysed the shot again and again. If you are the sort of
player who needs to take 4 or 5 views then you will struggle if you
only have one look. I don't think you can turn from one type of player
to another overnight. It's a bit of chicken and egg. If you always end
up in 5 hour rounds, you'll adjust your game to fill out that time and
start lining up a putt 5 times and pacing out all your shots and taking
your time over club selection. After a while, your standard pace will
creep up to maybe 4 or 4.5 hours...
I can see how playing too slowly or too fast can be annoying, but if
one group is playing too quickly, then it's only their group that will
get annoyed. If a groups plays slowly, then they will affect every
other group behind them.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 08:27:41
From: warren montgomery
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
> Maybe Scotland is quicker, but the rest of the UK follows a pretty
> brisk pace. I played in a medal a few weeks ago and one of the other
> guys was complaining that his last medal took nearly 4 hours. Generally
> we finish in about 3 1/2. That's a 3 ball, playing in a strokeplay
> competition, all walking and everyone playing off the back tees.
> Handicaps ranging from 0 to 28. I think some players have just got
> used to the idea of playing slowly and feel rushed when moving at a
> sensible speed. If I was playing on my own, I could get round in less
> than 2 1/2 hours, just walking at a normal speed and taking the normal
> time over shots. Even with a four ball, I can't imagine feeling rushed
> on a 4 hour pace.
>
I MUST go to the UK some day to play!
>
> I find that you can spot slow players before they play a single shot.
> They take ages getting their stuff our of the car, walk to the tee
> really slowly and take forever finding their pencils, gloves, balls,
> etc. in their bag.
>
Yes, and time between when the tee goes in the ground and the shot is hit is
another pretty good indication of what they will play like. For one thing
that's time when everyone else waits, so if each member of a foursome takes
30 seconds standing behind the ball, taking sideways practice swings,
waggling, and hatching it on every tee that's over half an hour in the round
(and since they will probably do the same thing on fairway shots you can
probably double that).
>
> Time on the green is a curious thing. I guess that I (and most others
> at my club) size up shots pretty quickly. If that's the way you play,
> then you'll get it right more often with your quick first impression
> than if you reanalysed the shot again and again. If you are the sort of
> player who needs to take 4 or 5 views then you will struggle if you
> only have one look. I don't think you can turn from one type of player
> to another overnight. It's a bit of chicken and egg. If you always end
> up in 5 hour rounds, you'll adjust your game to fill out that time and
> start lining up a putt 5 times and pacing out all your shots and taking
> your time over club selection. After a while, your standard pace will
> creep up to maybe 4 or 4.5 hours...
>
The real thing I find annoying about all that extra time on the green is
that putting is really 3 things -- reading the right line and speed, lining
it up, and executing the putt on that line. Most of us have enough trouble
lining up and executing that improving the read really won't help. The
problem though is that we have all read the writings of the gurus, who
advocate those routines because they are most often dealing with pros who
can line up and execute. The rest of us would do well to go to the practice
green and putt a few hundred dead straight flat putts to get to the point
where they are all getting in a tight circle before worrying too much about
reading the subtle breaks.
>
> I can see how playing too slowly or too fast can be annoying, but if
> one group is playing too quickly, then it's only their group that will
> get annoyed. If a groups plays slowly, then they will affect every
> other group behind them.
>
Good point, though I'm sure some will counter that someone playing too fast
and playing through everyone else on the way is going to frustrate more
folks too. The answer is of course that there's no reason to play through
unless there's a hole open in front, and if you are going abnormally faster
than the field there won't be an opening to play through. That happens to
me often enough and I don't mind at all just hitting some extra practice
shots and slowing down when it does.
--
Warren Montgomery (wamontgomery@att.net)
http://home.att.net/~wamontgomery
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 12:31:22
From: JJK
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
Simon wrote:
<snip >
> Time on the green is a curious thing. I guess that I (and most others
> at my club) size up shots pretty quickly. If that's the way you play,
> then you'll get it right more often with your quick first impression
> than if you reanalysed the shot again and again. If you are the sort of
> player who needs to take 4 or 5 views then you will struggle if you
> only have one look. <snip>
In one of his golf books, Bobby Jones claimed that he's never gained any
significantly useful information about a putt after about 5 seconds of study
for the pace and line. But then again, what would he know. ~`8^)
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 11:30:05
From: Matt
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
"S McFarlane" <skottymac@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:5n6Ng.6405$c22.718@trnddc07...
> The following got me thinking:
>
> ">Playing from the wrong tees is the main reason for slow play. Does
>>struggling all day mean you get your money's worth? This is one issue I
>>have with my fellow golfers and makes no sense.
>
> I disagree. The big reasons for slow play are:
> 1. Too many people on the course.
> 2. People who are not ready to hit when it's their turn to play.
> 3. People who move slowly.
>
> Clueless on the green is the most irritating."
>
> I've recently got back into the game after a _long_ absence (~1985!).
> Besides the fact that extremely mediocre players can now regularly hit
> drives in the > 270 yd range, the biggest change I've seen is the big
> hurry on the course. Since I've restarted, I've played a few rounds in
> about 3 1/2 - 3 3/4 hrs walking the course. By my frame of reference,
> that's exceptionally fast. But in the rounds I'm thinking of, I had to
> let about 4 groups play through, a few not at all friendly due to the
> 'slow' pace. My enjoyment of the game and surroundings was definitely
> lessened by having some uptight twosome on my tail for most of the round.
>
> What has happened to golf? I can rush about my day at work. I don't
> really want to head out to the golf course to do more rushing. Maybe
> standards for play have changed since 1985 in other ways than the driving
> distance of so-so players. Back then, 18 holes in 4 hrs was good enough.
> I can't recall a time when such a pace caused any problems. I can't
> imagine how many dirty looks I'd get if I dared to play a 4 hr round these
> days. Have the rules been changed in the last 20 years such that score
> adjustments are now made based on playing time?
>
> Clueless on the green is IMHO definitely not the most irritating.
> Clueless in the whole point of the best game ever definitely is. It's not
> a race.
>
> So, IMO, the #1 reason for slow play is: People who have unrealistic
> expectations as to how fast they can squeeze a round into their busy
> schedule. IM further O, people hampered by this fault should really
> consider taking up another hobby, something they might enjoy more. The
> brokering of stocks and bonds comes to mind.
>
> Scott
At my course, on a busy day, you'll be out there for 5 hours. At 65 dollars
a round thats WAYYYYY too fucking long to be on the golf course. My course
is a links style with a lot of heather. We play it as a lateral hazard to
try to increase the speed of play, but that doesnt work. Golfer one will
hit his ball into the heather, spend forever looking for it, drop a new
ball, then hit his next one into the heather and spend another 5 minutes
looking. Its a very common theme at my course. Also, the way the course is
setup doesnt help either. The finishing holes on both 9's are a drivable
par 4 and a par 3. So you always end up with a log jam on 8,9,17 and 18
tees. I've also noticed that you have TONS of people who will wait until
the group in front of them is on the green and putting before they hit their
tee shot. They should just hit when its clear, who cares if they are on the
green or not.
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 11:18:06
From: Tranny
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
S McFarlane wrote:
> The following got me thinking:
>
> ">Playing from the wrong tees is the main reason for slow play. Does
>> struggling all day mean you get your money's worth? This is one issue I
>> have with my fellow golfers and makes no sense.
>
> I disagree. The big reasons for slow play are:
> 1. Too many people on the course.
> 2. People who are not ready to hit when it's their turn to play.
> 3. People who move slowly.
>
> Clueless on the green is the most irritating."
>
> I've recently got back into the game after a _long_ absence (~1985!).
> Besides the fact that extremely mediocre players can now regularly hit
> drives in the > 270 yd range, the biggest change I've seen is the big hurry
> on the course. Since I've restarted, I've played a few rounds in about 3
> 1/2 - 3 3/4 hrs walking the course. By my frame of reference, that's
> exceptionally fast. But in the rounds I'm thinking of, I had to let about 4
> groups play through, a few not at all friendly due to the 'slow' pace. My
> enjoyment of the game and surroundings was definitely lessened by having
> some uptight twosome on my tail for most of the round.
>
> What has happened to golf? I can rush about my day at work. I don't really
> want to head out to the golf course to do more rushing. Maybe standards for
> play have changed since 1985 in other ways than the driving distance of
> so-so players. Back then, 18 holes in 4 hrs was good enough. I can't
> recall a time when such a pace caused any problems. I can't imagine how
> many dirty looks I'd get if I dared to play a 4 hr round these days. Have
> the rules been changed in the last 20 years such that score adjustments are
> now made based on playing time?
>
> Clueless on the green is IMHO definitely not the most irritating. Clueless
> in the whole point of the best game ever definitely is. It's not a race.
>
> So, IMO, the #1 reason for slow play is: People who have unrealistic
> expectations as to how fast they can squeeze a round into their busy
> schedule. IM further O, people hampered by this fault should really
> consider taking up another hobby, something they might enjoy more. The
> brokering of stocks and bonds comes to mind.
>
> Scott
You can understand why courses shouldn't let non-handicapped players on
- for me that would mean a guy with 28 not being allowed on until he can
actually play 100 or under.
After all, he'd be better (and enjoy it more) practicing.
Tran
|
| |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 23:03:20
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
S McFarlane wrote:
> The following got me thinking:
>
> ">Playing from the wrong tees is the main reason for slow play. Does
> >struggling all day mean you get your money's worth? This is one issue I
> >have with my fellow golfers and makes no sense.
>
> I disagree. The big reasons for slow play are:
> 1. Too many people on the course.
> 2. People who are not ready to hit when it's their turn to play.
> 3. People who move slowly.
>
> Clueless on the green is the most irritating."
>
> I've recently got back into the game after a _long_ absence (~1985!).
> Besides the fact that extremely mediocre players can now regularly hit
> drives in the > 270 yd range, the biggest change I've seen is the big hurry
> on the course. Since I've restarted, I've played a few rounds in about 3
> 1/2 - 3 3/4 hrs walking the course. By my frame of reference, that's
> exceptionally fast. But in the rounds I'm thinking of, I had to let about 4
> groups play through, a few not at all friendly due to the 'slow' pace. My
> enjoyment of the game and surroundings was definitely lessened by having
> some uptight twosome on my tail for most of the round.
>
> What has happened to golf? I can rush about my day at work. I don't really
> want to head out to the golf course to do more rushing. Maybe standards for
> play have changed since 1985 in other ways than the driving distance of
> so-so players. Back then, 18 holes in 4 hrs was good enough. I can't
> recall a time when such a pace caused any problems. I can't imagine how
> many dirty looks I'd get if I dared to play a 4 hr round these days. Have
> the rules been changed in the last 20 years such that score adjustments are
> now made based on playing time?
>
> Clueless on the green is IMHO definitely not the most irritating. Clueless
> in the whole point of the best game ever definitely is. It's not a race.
>
> So, IMO, the #1 reason for slow play is: People who have unrealistic
> expectations as to how fast they can squeeze a round into their busy
> schedule. IM further O, people hampered by this fault should really
> consider taking up another hobby, something they might enjoy more. The
> brokering of stocks and bonds comes to mind.
If I didn't know better, I'd swear you were one of the guys I got
paired with today. We were a twosome, me, and another single,
an old guy. When we met on the first tee, I asked which tees
they liked to play from. The old guy said whites, so I said fine,
I'd play with him there. The other two guys insisted on playing
the blue tees. It soon became obvious that neither of them
should have been playing the blues, as shot after shot
curved off who knows where. And this was on a tight course
with deep rough, and bad news if you missed the fairway.
So there were a lot of long walks into the bush, and lots of
standing around waiting, instead of ready golf. We started
getting visits from the shalls. We were 6 minutes behind,
then 8, then 14...
I mentioned ready golf, which was greeted with a blank stare.
I offered gimmies, and mentioned that we needed to pick
up the pace - no, they always holed everything out.
Finally I told them that I was going to play on ahead, so they
could play faster with a smaller group. There were 3 open
holes ahead of us before I ran into the group ahead, a foursome.
They were playing pretty fast, so I just fell in behind them.
Ended up finishing 20 minutes ahead of the pace, vs 18 minutes
behind the pace, when I left the first group.
The old guy was actually pretty good. Not long, but he stayed
mostly in the fairways, and was a deadly putter. I wished I
had thought of inviting him along when I split.
Anyway, what started out as an interesting round turned into
a preoccupation over the pace of play, and it became that way
not because of overcrowded conditions, but because of
clueless behaviour of two guys in our group. It really started
to bug me, and affected my play. I don't like getting "the talk"
from the shall, when it wsn't my fault, but the fault of a
couple of strangers I got thrown in with. Then messages from
the clubhouse on the gps screen... well, not pleasant.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 06:37:50
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
"Birdie Bill" <bighorn_bill@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1157954600.440770.306390@q16g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> If I didn't know better, I'd swear you were one of the guys I got
> paired with today. We were a twosome, me, and another single,
> an old guy. When we met on the first tee, I asked which tees
> they liked to play from. The old guy said whites, so I said fine,
> I'd play with him there. The other two guys insisted on playing
> the blue tees. It soon became obvious that neither of them
> should have been playing the blues, as shot after shot
> curved off who knows where. And this was on a tight course
> with deep rough, and bad news if you missed the fairway.
Yikes, I hope you don't think I was one of those!
> The old guy was actually pretty good. Not long, but he stayed
> mostly in the fairways, and was a deadly putter.
Now I know I wasn't him, so it must have been one of the other guys!
>
> Anyway, what started out as an interesting round turned into
> a preoccupation over the pace of play, and it became that way
> not because of overcrowded conditions, but because of
> clueless behaviour of two guys in our group. It really started
> to bug me, and affected my play. I don't like getting "the talk"
> from the shall, when it wsn't my fault, but the fault of a
> couple of strangers I got thrown in with. Then messages from
> the clubhouse on the gps screen... well, not pleasant.
Yep, that sucks, and that hasn't changed in the last 20 years. Silly slow
play is no more fun than silly fast play. It can ruin a good time just as
easy as someone who wants to hurry things along when they're already moving
at a sufficient pace. I call it the Masters syndrome: someone who's
shooting maybe 90 if he's lucky but needs a few minutes to read each putt as
if the green jacket depended on it.
As someone who walks on more often than not, I can sympathize with you on
the shall punishing the group for the sins of a few (strangers). I
really don't mind so much when the delay is due to lack of ability. I
certainly remember some bad rounds myself, especially when starting out.
But I also never looked at a putt for more than a few moments, either.
Scott
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 05:30:33
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
S McFarlane <skottymac@verizon.net > wrote:
: What has happened to golf? I can rush about my day at work. I don't really
: want to head out to the golf course to do more rushing. Maybe standards for
: play have changed since 1985 in other ways than the driving distance of
: so-so players. Back then, 18 holes in 4 hrs was good enough. I can't
: recall a time when such a pace caused any problems. I can't imagine how
: many dirty looks I'd get if I dared to play a 4 hr round these days.
4 hour rounds at some courses around here would get you named
king for life if you could make that happen. I can't *ever*
remember a 4 hour pace being problematic.
I submit that you're playing someplace well outside the American
norm for pace of play. For instance, 4 hours in Scotland wouldn't
go over well at all. But on our side of the pond, that's a coveted
pace almost anywhere.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 06:00:07
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3f5h1eI2q4N34@redshark.goodshow.net...
>
> 4 hour rounds at some courses around here would get you named
> king for life if you could make that happen. I can't *ever*
> remember a 4 hour pace being problematic.
>
> I submit that you're playing someplace well outside the American
> norm for pace of play. For instance, 4 hours in Scotland wouldn't
> go over well at all. But on our side of the pond, that's a coveted
> pace almost anywhere.
I may be playing someplace well outside the American norm, but that
someplace is American as apple pie.
One thing I have noticed is that foursomes are much less common than they
used to be. Lots of singles and twosomes around here, usually on wheels.
Maybe that's a result of the glut of courses being built in the last 10
years around here. I think it's definitely the cause of the speed-golf feel
around here.
Anyway, I'm glad to hear that there's still somewhere where the 'standard' 4
hour round works. That's really the pace at which I can enjoy the game
without feeling hurried or unduly delayed. Unfortunately, it sounds like
the pace is a little slower in your neck of the woods. Too much slower
than that really can be a bit irritating.
Scott
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 12:11:37
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
If it takes you four hours to play a round of golf with a twosome....and you
have nobody in front of you slowing you down.....you're a slow poke by any
measure.
And that's not racing. That's taking it leisurely.
Randy
"S McFarlane" <skottymac@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:HX6Ng.6407$c22.6208@trnddc07...
>
> "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
> news:0T3f5h1eI2q4N34@redshark.goodshow.net...
>>
>> 4 hour rounds at some courses around here would get you named
>> king for life if you could make that happen. I can't *ever*
>> remember a 4 hour pace being problematic.
>>
>> I submit that you're playing someplace well outside the American
>> norm for pace of play. For instance, 4 hours in Scotland wouldn't
>> go over well at all. But on our side of the pond, that's a coveted
>> pace almost anywhere.
>
> I may be playing someplace well outside the American norm, but that
> someplace is American as apple pie.
>
> One thing I have noticed is that foursomes are much less common than they
> used to be. Lots of singles and twosomes around here, usually on wheels.
> Maybe that's a result of the glut of courses being built in the last 10
> years around here. I think it's definitely the cause of the speed-golf
> feel around here.
>
> Anyway, I'm glad to hear that there's still somewhere where the 'standard'
> 4 hour round works. That's really the pace at which I can enjoy the game
> without feeling hurried or unduly delayed. Unfortunately, it sounds like
> the pace is a little slower in your neck of the woods. Too much slower
> than that really can be a bit irritating.
>
> Scott
>
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 08:17:31
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
S McFarlane <skottymac@verizon.net > wrote:
: Anyway, I'm glad to hear that there's still somewhere where the 'standard' 4
: hour round works. That's really the pace at which I can enjoy the game
: without feeling hurried or unduly delayed. Unfortunately, it sounds like
: the pace is a little slower in your neck of the woods. Too much slower
: than that really can be a bit irritating.
5.5 hours at Tour 18 here in DFW isn't at all unusual. :(
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 12:11:54
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: What's too slow for you?
|
That's ridiculous.
Randy
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3f5qvgI5lmN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
>S McFarlane <skottymac@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> : Anyway, I'm glad to hear that there's still somewhere where the
> 'standard' 4
> : hour round works. That's really the pace at which I can enjoy the game
> : without feeling hurried or unduly delayed. Unfortunately, it sounds
> like
> : the pace is a little slower in your neck of the woods. Too much slower
> : than that really can be a bit irritating.
>
> 5.5 hours at Tour 18 here in DFW isn't at all unusual. :(
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/
|
|
