On top of the clubhouse?

golf-forums.net
Promoting golf discussion.

Main

Date: 25 Aug 2006 22:19:11
From: Bow Tie
Subject: On top of the clubhouse?

I've never played a course where the clubhouse is not out of bounds.
Tiger even admits that in the press conference. At my old club, even
the halfway house was OB. He should have been hitting four from where
his tee shot ended up. Clearly a poor decision and ultimately was lucky
to make bogey. First poor decision since before the Open Championship.

Ken

Date: 25 Aug 2006 22:41:01
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Some times (especially at a course like Firestone CC) you have to take
your medicine. I think a lot of the higher echelon players are just not
willing to do that. At the very least, this going for broke cost Phil a
chance at a playoff in the US Open. As good as he is with the wedge, he
might have won outright if he had not made that poor decision. I hope
Tiger and Phil are more willing to back away from the "damn the
torpedoes" attitude furing the Ryder Cup.

Ken

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> Bow Tie <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I've never played a course where the clubhouse is not out of bounds.
> > Tiger even admits that in the press conference. At my old club, even
> > the halfway house was OB. He should have been hitting four from where
> > his tee shot ended up. Clearly a poor decision and ultimately was lucky
> > to make bogey. First poor decision since before the Open Championship.
>
> I don't know how poor the decision was, really... he caught a
> flier and the ball bounced off a road to get on the roof. I
> think that's at least as unlucky was it was unwise.
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/

Date: 25 Aug 2006 22:35:55
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

A poor decision. Like Mickelson at the US Open. Lay it out in the
fairway and try to save par with the wedge. That way, five is the
highest reasonable number that you could expect. Anything that ends up
on top of the clubhouse is the result of a brain fart (poor decision).
The ruling was what it was. The clubhouse was either OB or it wasn't.
Surprising that it isn't. I thought you only got five minutes to look
for your ball, BTW. I just saw on Sports Center that they took over
half an hour and let the group behind play through. Hmmmm..........

Ken

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Big_Fan wrote:
> Bow Tie wrote:
> > I've never played a course where the clubhouse is not out of bounds.
> > Tiger even admits that in the press conference. At my old club, even
> > the halfway house was OB. He should have been hitting four from where
> > his tee shot ended up. Clearly a poor decision and ultimately was lucky
> > to make bogey. First poor decision since before the Open Championship.
> >
> > Ken
>
> Poor decision? For Tiger? He didn't make the ruling. He caught the
> flyer out of the rough and I'm sure he didn't think his 9-iron would go
> 210.

Date: 26 Aug 2006 01:09:04
From:
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

There should be a lot of monday morning quarterback calls on this one.

>mho
>v fe

>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0"d R i V e =A0L e $ s"

Date: 26 Aug 2006 05:45:18
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Bow Tie <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com > wrote:
> A poor decision. Like Mickelson at the US Open. Lay it out in the
> fairway and try to save par with the wedge. That way, five is the
> highest reasonable number that you could expect. Anything that ends up
> on top of the clubhouse is the result of a brain fart (poor decision).
> The ruling was what it was. The clubhouse was either OB or it wasn't.
> Surprising that it isn't. I thought you only got five minutes to look
> for your ball, BTW. I just saw on Sports Center that they took over
> half an hour and let the group behind play through. Hmmmm..........

There's no time limit on waiting for an official to make
a ruling, though. You know that. Tiger wasn't looking for
his ball, he presumed it was on the roof. I think that if
they had told him to go back and take stroke and distance
that he would have without hesitation.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 26 Aug 2006 04:34:33
From: multi
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 05:45:18 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
> I think that if
>they had told him to go back and take stroke and distance
>that he would have without hesitation.

Agreed, but what I was wondering the entire 45 minutes was why he
didn't immediately hit a provisional ball, especially since he said
later that he assumed it was OOB, and his group was already on the
clock. And the answer I keep coming up with is that he didn't want to
make it any easier for the officials to rule his ball OOB.

One of the Golf Channel guys, I think Nabilo, made a funny comment
that was apparently intended seriously. He said, approximately, "This
shows how strong Tiger's mental game is. He tried to make that putt
for par as if it were for birdie, feeling absolutely no guilt."

Date: 27 Aug 2006 16:32:39
From:
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Why would you characterize him as a "creep"? Like I said, I reserve
that for the likes of barry Bonds or Mike Tyson. Jack likes to make
money. What else you got?

You constantly call me a Jack worshiper. I would call that an attack.

Ken

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
glfnaz wrote:
> Why is it that when I attack Jack, you think I'm attacking you?
> Tiger worshippers have nothing on you Ken.
> Do you sleep with a lil' Jack Doll?
>
> <kenpittsjr@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1156717772.392337.295070@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > I'm waiting for you to justify your "creep" characterization. You're
> > copping out and attacking me again.
> >
> > Cite something other than the money. Otherwise, I say Jack Nicklaus is
> > a great gentleman of the game and you are going to have a Hell of a
> > time making me even blink when it comes to thinking anything else.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > glfnaz wrote:
> >> You could talk about Jack all day, couldn't you?
> >>
> >

Date: 27 Aug 2006 21:00:49
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Ken.
Do you ever call RSG'ers --'Tiger worshippers'?
Is that OK? I mean for you to attack "Tiger Worshipers", but it not be OK
for someone to call you a Jack Worshipper?
Ken...are you still with me?
Do you kind of understand, that my calling you a Jack Worshipper is only a
game... and that you cannot draw the lines together to understand that it
relates to your calling Tiger Fans --: Tiger Worshipers'?
Ken--are you still lost?

<kenpittsjr@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1156721559.276267.125920@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Why would you characterize him as a "creep"? Like I said, I reserve
> that for the likes of barry Bonds or Mike Tyson. Jack likes to make
> money. What else you got?
>
> You constantly call me a Jack worshiper. I would call that an attack.
>
> Ken
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: 27 Aug 2006 14:54:31
From:
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

He shot a million when I played with him. I shot 1 under in the same
group. All the attacks he has made on me, I will never play with him
again. So, he is forever a hack to me.

Ken

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2006 13:52:33 -0700, "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >You do nothing but attack me. You and Dalecki and multi are the same,
> >except I've heard you can play a little. multi doesn't even play golf
> >(or work) and Dalecki is a hopeless hack.
> >
> >Ken
>
> I haven't played with glfnaz, but Dalecki came to Denton, played my
> course for the first time (which you know) and shot 76, with a 4
> putt. He is NOT a hacker Ken.
> ___,
> \o
>

Date: 27 Aug 2006 16:59:58
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On 27 Aug 2006 14:54:31 -0700, kenpittsjr@gmail.com wrote:

>He shot a million when I played with him. I shot 1 under in the same
>group. All the attacks he has made on me, I will never play with him
>again. So, he is forever a hack to me.
>
>Ken

That makes no sense. Whatever he shot 4-5 years ago has no bearing on
his game now. He's a player. You have little room to talk about
attacks here Ken.
___,
\o

Date: 27 Aug 2006 12:27:32
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Howard Brazee wrote:
> I thought when he got the gallery to move that boulder, he got the
> call. And he's less likely to lose a ball with all of his fore
> caddies (the gallery). But this call seems to be one that everybody
> in the tour gets.

It implies that when the ball is in a very bad lie, behind a tree or
something, the player=B4s best option might be to hit it into the
clubhouse or the car-park and get a generous free-drop close to the
green. Rather strange, to say the least. F

Date: 27 Aug 2006 12:37:39
From: multi
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On 27 Aug 2006 12:27:32 -0700, "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com > wrote:
>Howard Brazee wrote:
>> I thought when he got the gallery to move that boulder, he got the
>> call. And he's less likely to lose a ball with all of his fore
>> caddies (the gallery). But this call seems to be one that everybody
>> in the tour gets.
>
>It implies that when the ball is in a very bad lie, behind a tree or
>something, the player�s best option might be to hit it into the
>clubhouse or the car-park and get a generous free-drop close to the
>green. Rather strange, to say the least. F

It is a standard part of the pros' shot selection to weigh the
benefits of hitting it into the grandstands and getting a drop. That
may have been what Tiger was trying to do.

Date: 26 Aug 2006 05:28:03
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Bow Tie <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com > wrote:
> I've never played a course where the clubhouse is not out of bounds.
> Tiger even admits that in the press conference. At my old club, even
> the halfway house was OB. He should have been hitting four from where
> his tee shot ended up. Clearly a poor decision and ultimately was lucky
> to make bogey. First poor decision since before the Open Championship.

I don't know how poor the decision was, really... he caught a
flier and the ball bounced off a road to get on the roof. I
think that's at least as unlucky was it was unwise.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 25 Aug 2006 22:29:25
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Bow Tie wrote:
> I've never played a course where the clubhouse is not out of bounds.
> Tiger even admits that in the press conference. At my old club, even
> the halfway house was OB. He should have been hitting four from where
> his tee shot ended up. Clearly a poor decision and ultimately was lucky
> to make bogey. First poor decision since before the Open Championship.
>
> Ken

Poor decision? For Tiger? He didn't make the ruling. He caught the
flyer out of the rough and I'm sure he didn't think his 9-iron would go
210.

Date: 26 Aug 2006 01:04:59
From:
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

When Tiger struck the ball on 18 that flew the coop - his swing was
*carrying the mail*, way too much power for the project.

It will be interesting to "hear" about the actual flight of the ball,
when / if it is found.

When Tiger struck the ball you could see / tell that the situation
surrounding him at the time was less than ideal.

>mho
>v fe

>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0"d R i V e =A0L e $ s"

Date: 26 Aug 2006 07:21:00
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

multi wrote:
> No, we wouldn't have, but IMO *any* PGA pro would. Both rulings were
> correct, according to the rules at that time.

I hope you are right. Feels better, you know. F

Date: 26 Aug 2006 07:40:31
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Bow Tie wrote:
> I've never played a course where the clubhouse is not out of bounds.
> Tiger even admits that in the press conference.

Tiger "admitts" it? That sounds like he's guilty of something.

Then again, in your mind, he probably is. Guilty of being better than
Jack Nicklaus.

I'll admit that.

> At my old club, even
> the halfway house was OB. He should have been hitting four from where
> his tee shot ended up. Clearly a poor decision and ultimately was lucky
> to make bogey. First poor decision since before the Open Championship.

The problem you have--other than your Tiger hatred fetish--is that they
didn't define the clubhouse OB before the tournament.

As it was, Tiger used the rules to his advantage, as can you or any
other golfer. Isn't that how golf is played?

Or are you suggesting that you, in a fit of magnanimous generosity,
during a match of some consequence, would voluntarily take an extra two
strokes after defining something as out of bounds, not because it was
OB, but because you felt it should be?

Get over it, Ken. Tiger's the best ever. And even when he's lucky,
that doesn't change anything.

Mike

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Aug 2006 05:13:30
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

multi wrote:
> Agreed, but what I was wondering the entire 45 minutes was why he
> didn't immediately hit a provisional ball, especially since he said
> later that he assumed it was OOB, and his group was already on the
> clock. And the answer I keep coming up with is that he didn't want to
> make it any easier for the officials to rule his ball OOB.

One can only wonder if ordinary blokes like you and me would have been
treated so generously. I fear not. This looked like VIP treatment, I=B4m
sad to say. Reminds one of the incident with Tiger and the huge
boulder. Would we have got away with that? I don=B4t think so. F

Date: 26 Aug 2006 06:31:42
From: multi
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On 26 Aug 2006 05:13:30 -0700, "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com > wrote:

>
>multi wrote:
>> Agreed, but what I was wondering the entire 45 minutes was why he
>> didn't immediately hit a provisional ball, especially since he said
>> later that he assumed it was OOB, and his group was already on the
>> clock. And the answer I keep coming up with is that he didn't want to
>> make it any easier for the officials to rule his ball OOB.
>
>One can only wonder if ordinary blokes like you and me would have been
>treated so generously. I fear not. This looked like VIP treatment, I�m
>sad to say. Reminds one of the incident with Tiger and the huge
>boulder. Would we have got away with that? I don�t think so. F

No, we wouldn't have, but IMO *any* PGA pro would. Both rulings were
correct, according to the rules at that time. But as Tiger said in
his press conference, the clubhouse will probably be OB this weekend.

These officials know that whatever they do will be on national TV, and
scrutinzed by millions. They will not jeopardize their positions by
kissing up to Tiger. They DQ'd Michelle, didn't they?

Date: 27 Aug 2006 12:23:05
From: David
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 06:31:42 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:

>On 26 Aug 2006 05:13:30 -0700, "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>multi wrote:
>>> Agreed, but what I was wondering the entire 45 minutes was why he
>>> didn't immediately hit a provisional ball, especially since he said
>>> later that he assumed it was OOB, and his group was already on the
>>> clock. And the answer I keep coming up with is that he didn't want to
>>> make it any easier for the officials to rule his ball OOB.
>>
>>One can only wonder if ordinary blokes like you and me would have been
>>treated so generously. I fear not. This looked like VIP treatment, I�m
>>sad to say. Reminds one of the incident with Tiger and the huge
>>boulder. Would we have got away with that? I don�t think so. F
>
>No, we wouldn't have, but IMO *any* PGA pro would. Both rulings were
>correct, according to the rules at that time. But as Tiger said in
>his press conference, the clubhouse will probably be OB this weekend.

The OOB ruling was definitely not correct. He should have been
assessed stroke and distance. The boulder incident still burns my
ass. The ruling was not correct at that time, either.

Could any other pro have gotten away with it? I think not. First
of all, I doubt that any other sane golfer would have even attempted
to describe the boulder as anything are than being a part of the golf
course. Secondly, there were many golfers in that tournament that
might not have had enough followers to get the help needed to move
that damned boulder.

I have heard all of the arguments that were pro-woods as this was
discussed in depth in RSG when it happened, so I don't need to hear
the arguments now. Being afforded the opportunity to move the boulder
was a huge stretch of the imagination, as was a ball that landed on
the roof of a building and not being declared out of bounds was.

I suppose that Woods actually should have had someone grab him a
ladder and let him play it from the top to the building, since his
ball was technically "still in play?"

>These officials know that whatever they do will be on national TV, and
>scrutinzed by millions. They will not jeopardize their positions by
>kissing up to Tiger. They DQ'd Michelle, didn't they?

David

Date: 27 Aug 2006 13:42:04
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 12:23:05 +0200, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:

> Could any other pro have gotten away with it? I think not.

But they have gotten away with similar rulings quite often.

Date: 29 Aug 2006 15:31:36
From: David
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 13:42:04 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 12:23:05 +0200, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
>> Could any other pro have gotten away with it? I think not.
>
>But they have gotten away with similar rulings quite often.

No, I have never seen anything remotely similar to this. I checked
the score card at a few different courses. Guess what? None of them
have the clubhouse specifically marked as OB. I promise you, however,
hit your ball on to the roof and tell any of my playing partners that
you should get a drop would be hazardous to your health!

David

Date: 29 Aug 2006 14:17:08
From: rich
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

"David" <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote in message
news:sag8f2p3mli3a8ulh69u3u563clumejcu4@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 13:42:04 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 12:23:05 +0200, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Could any other pro have gotten away with it? I think not.
>>
>>But they have gotten away with similar rulings quite often.
>
> No, I have never seen anything remotely similar to this. I checked
> the score card at a few different courses. Guess what? None of them
> have the clubhouse specifically marked as OB. I promise you, however,
> hit your ball on to the roof and tell any of my playing partners that
> you should get a drop would be hazardous to your health!

Someone ought to tell David Hayes of the USGA since he seems to be under the
impression that if it not marked it is not OB.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/golf/pga/2006-08-28-tiger-roof-ruling_x.htm
(kudos to annika for posting this)

It is not what you know that makes you look foolish, it is what you think
you know that just isn't so.

Sorry that your playing partners don't know the rules.

Rich

Date: 30 Aug 2006 18:10:15
From:
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

>Could any other pro have gotten away with it?
>I think not.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Nobody got away with anything, any seemingly improprieties were the
result of simplicity, i e, let's get the show on the road, now!! - I
think.

>m h o
>=A0v =83e

>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0u s o - until everyone comes home

Date: 28 Aug 2006 12:26:41
From: JJK
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

"David" wrote:
<snip >
> The boulder incident still burns my a$$.
<snip >

I suggest that you seek medical attention immediately!

Date: 26 Aug 2006 02:44:40
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Chris Bellomy wrote:
> Big_Fan <bigpufan@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Btw, how accurate are you with your club choices out of
> > the rough? You know what a flyer is?
>
> Uh, this isn't the guy you want to take on in this way. He's
> a player.

Then he should understand that there wasn't anything wrong with Tiger's
decision. This isn't Phil. I'll put Tiger's course management skills
and decision-making skills up against any "player".

Date: 26 Aug 2006 09:56:34
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Big_Fan <bigpufan@aol.com > wrote:
>
> Chris Bellomy wrote:
>> Big_Fan <bigpufan@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Btw, how accurate are you with your club choices out of
>> > the rough? You know what a flyer is?
>>
>> Uh, this isn't the guy you want to take on in this way. He's
>> a player.
>
> Then he should understand that there wasn't anything wrong with Tiger's
> decision.

There was *something* wrong with it, it put his ball on the
roof of the clubhouse.

> This isn't Phil.

Agreed.

> I'll put Tiger's course management skills
> and decision-making skills up against any "player".

Me too, but that's besides the point of "do you know what a flyer
is." I assure you that there are a few dozen people here who can
vouch for Ken's ballstriking ability. And his course management,
for that matter. He may be OTT on this but he does know golf.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 26 Aug 2006 00:46:57
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Bow Tie wrote:
> A poor decision. Like Mickelson at the US Open. Lay it out in the
> fairway and try to save par with the wedge. That way, five is the
> highest reasonable number that you could expect. Anything that ends up
> on top of the clubhouse is the result of a brain fart (poor decision).
> The ruling was what it was. The clubhouse was either OB or it wasn't.
> Surprising that it isn't. I thought you only got five minutes to look
> for your ball, BTW. I just saw on Sports Center that they took over
> half an hour and let the group behind play through. Hmmmm..........

This is far from the Mickelson decision. He just hit the wrong club.
That's completely different. He obviously didn't need to chip out,
because he hit it over the trees and at the green. He should've just
hit the wedge. Btw, how accurate are you with your club choices out of
the rough? You know what a flyer is?

Date: 26 Aug 2006 08:04:52
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Big_Fan <bigpufan@aol.com > wrote:

> Btw, how accurate are you with your club choices out of
> the rough? You know what a flyer is?

Uh, this isn't the guy you want to take on in this way. He's
a player.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 27 Aug 2006 21:14:00
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

They are off the deep end, just like the broadcasters today - acting
like nobody stood a chance. Guess what - if Tiger fails to get up and
down on the first playoff hole - very iffy - Cink wins.

I don't go off the deep end with hyperbolic praise.

I post about a strategic mistake Tiger makes and I get attacked from
all sides, including you.

Ken

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
glfnaz wrote:
> Ken.
> Do you ever call RSG'ers --'Tiger worshippers'?
> Is that OK? I mean for you to attack "Tiger Worshipers", but it not be OK
> for someone to call you a Jack Worshipper?
> Ken...are you still with me?
> Do you kind of understand, that my calling you a Jack Worshipper is only a
> game... and that you cannot draw the lines together to understand that it
> relates to your calling Tiger Fans --: Tiger Worshipers'?
> Ken--are you still lost?
>
>
> <kenpittsjr@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1156721559.276267.125920@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > Why would you characterize him as a "creep"? Like I said, I reserve
> > that for the likes of barry Bonds or Mike Tyson. Jack likes to make
> > money. What else you got?
> >
> > You constantly call me a Jack worshiper. I would call that an attack.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: 27 Aug 2006 21:13:59
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Date: 27 Aug 2006 21:28:23
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

I never attacked you.
I attacked jack.
You made it a personal issue.

"Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1156738439.896182.323930@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> They are off the deep end, just like the broadcasters today - acting
> like nobody stood a chance. Guess what - if Tiger fails to get up and
> down on the first playoff hole - very iffy - Cink wins.
>
> I don't go off the deep end with hyperbolic praise.
>
> I post about a strategic mistake Tiger makes and I get attacked from
> all sides, including you.
>
> Ken
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> glfnaz wrote:
>> Ken.
>> Do you ever call RSG'ers --'Tiger worshippers'?
>> Is that OK? I mean for you to attack "Tiger Worshipers", but it not be OK
>> for someone to call you a Jack Worshipper?
>> Ken...are you still with me?
>> Do you kind of understand, that my calling you a Jack Worshipper is only
>> a
>> game... and that you cannot draw the lines together to understand that it
>> relates to your calling Tiger Fans --: Tiger Worshipers'?
>> Ken--are you still lost?
>>
>>
>> <kenpittsjr@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1156721559.276267.125920@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> > Why would you characterize him as a "creep"? Like I said, I reserve
>> > that for the likes of barry Bonds or Mike Tyson. Jack likes to make
>> > money. What else you got?
>> >
>> > You constantly call me a Jack worshiper. I would call that an attack.
>> >
>> > Ken
>> >
>> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>

Date: 27 Aug 2006 23:21:06
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On 27 Aug 2006 21:13:59 -0700, "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com >
wrote:

>They are off the deep end, just like the broadcasters today - acting
>like nobody stood a chance. Guess what - if Tiger fails to get up and
>down on the first playoff hole - very iffy - Cink wins.

IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF,
IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF.

He got up and down...he won. Drop it.
>
>I don't go off the deep end with hyperbolic praise.
>
Bullshit. Go back and read all of those posts about how wonderful
Jack is...

>I post about a strategic mistake Tiger makes and I get attacked from
>all sides, including you.
>

First of all, you only have an opinion about Tiger's strategy. You
aren't attacked. Others offer their opinions, and you take them as
attacks.

Chill out.
___,
\o

Date: 27 Aug 2006 15:04:10
From:
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

I constantly get attacked by all kinds of people. He was really
interested in what I had to say when I was trying to help him. Now, he
never fails to attack me. Never fails.

Dalecki couldn't beat me in my sleep.

Ken

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bobby Knight wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2006 14:54:31 -0700, kenpittsjr@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >He shot a million when I played with him. I shot 1 under in the same
> >group. All the attacks he has made on me, I will never play with him
> >again. So, he is forever a hack to me.
> >
> >Ken
>
> That makes no sense. Whatever he shot 4-5 years ago has no bearing on
> his game now. He's a player. You have little room to talk about
> attacks here Ken.
> ___,
> \o
>

Date: 25 Aug 2006 22:52:32
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Why does it take half an hour to get a ruling? They could have ordered
lunch and ate it while they were waiting.

Ken

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> Bow Tie <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > A poor decision. Like Mickelson at the US Open. Lay it out in the
> > fairway and try to save par with the wedge. That way, five is the
> > highest reasonable number that you could expect. Anything that ends up
> > on top of the clubhouse is the result of a brain fart (poor decision).
> > The ruling was what it was. The clubhouse was either OB or it wasn't.
> > Surprising that it isn't. I thought you only got five minutes to look
> > for your ball, BTW. I just saw on Sports Center that they took over
> > half an hour and let the group behind play through. Hmmmm..........
>
> There's no time limit on waiting for an official to make
> a ruling, though. You know that. Tiger wasn't looking for
> his ball, he presumed it was on the roof. I think that if
> they had told him to go back and take stroke and distance
> that he would have without hesitation.
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/

Date: 26 Aug 2006 06:08:48
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Bow Tie <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Why does it take half an hour to get a ruling? They could have ordered
> lunch and ate it while they were waiting.

Agreed, mostly. I think a lot of the complication had to do
with the fact that an outside agency (a cook?) found his ball
and they had to backtrack and figure out where he found it,
etc., yadda yadda.

I also agree that the clubhouse should have been marked OB,
but, since it wasn't, it's clearly part of the property and
therefore in play. But the committee really put their rules
officials in a bind by leaving open the possibility that a
ball could get up/back there and be in play. I think they
made the correct decision but it was silly that they had to
make it in the first place.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 25 Aug 2006 22:49:07
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Just saw a replay of the shot in question. That ball was thirty yds
long and thirty yds right. Landed no more than twenty ft from the
building. Could just have easily gone thru a door that was near where
it landed. Cannot understand why all of that is not OB.

Ken

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bow Tie wrote:
> Some times (especially at a course like Firestone CC) you have to take
> your medicine. I think a lot of the higher echelon players are just not
> willing to do that. At the very least, this going for broke cost Phil a
> chance at a playoff in the US Open. As good as he is with the wedge, he
> might have won outright if he had not made that poor decision. I hope
> Tiger and Phil are more willing to back away from the "damn the
> torpedoes" attitude furing the Ryder Cup.
>
> Ken
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Chris Bellomy wrote:
> > Bow Tie <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I've never played a course where the clubhouse is not out of bounds.
> > > Tiger even admits that in the press conference. At my old club, even
> > > the halfway house was OB. He should have been hitting four from where
> > > his tee shot ended up. Clearly a poor decision and ultimately was lucky
> > > to make bogey. First poor decision since before the Open Championship.
> >
> > I don't know how poor the decision was, really... he caught a
> > flier and the ball bounced off a road to get on the roof. I
> > think that's at least as unlucky was it was unwise.
> >
> > --
> > Chris Bellomy
> > C-List Charter Member
> > http://clist.org/

Date: 27 Aug 2006 10:42:21
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Hit the wrong club? No. I have seen replays of this several times. He
took a wild lash at it and it was also way right. I find it hilarious
that all these Tiger fans are so anxious to lay it off to a flyer. All
of us make poor decisions in this game. In my book this was a poor
decision on Tiger's part. Those are some heavy duty trees defining the
holes there at Firestone.

This is very similar to the poor decision Phil made at the US Open.
Both were trying to recover from pushed tee shots. Both should have
laid out and tried to save par with the wedge. Both are excellent wedge
players. It resulted in disaster for Phil since it was the 72nd hole of
a major. Lots of time for Tiger to recover since it was only the end of
the second round.

Ken

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Big_Fan wrote:
> Bow Tie wrote:
> > A poor decision. Like Mickelson at the US Open. Lay it out in the
> > fairway and try to save par with the wedge. That way, five is the
> > highest reasonable number that you could expect. Anything that ends up
> > on top of the clubhouse is the result of a brain fart (poor decision).
> > The ruling was what it was. The clubhouse was either OB or it wasn't.
> > Surprising that it isn't. I thought you only got five minutes to look
> > for your ball, BTW. I just saw on Sports Center that they took over
> > half an hour and let the group behind play through. Hmmmm..........
>
> This is far from the Mickelson decision. He just hit the wrong club.
> That's completely different. He obviously didn't need to chip out,
> because he hit it over the trees and at the green. He should've just
> hit the wedge. Btw, how accurate are you with your club choices out of
> the rough? You know what a flyer is?

Date: 27 Aug 2006 18:02:54
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Bow Tie <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Hit the wrong club? No. I have seen replays of this several times. He
> took a wild lash at it and it was also way right. I find it hilarious
> that all these Tiger fans are so anxious to lay it off to a flyer.

Hey, you know I'm not a huge Tigerphile, but even I attribute
it to flyer + cart path bounce. Yeah, he took a hard swing at
it, but the ball was down in the rough. There's no other good
way to play that shot. I guess he could have done it with a
wedge, but geez, 210 yards with a 9 iron?

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 27 Aug 2006 10:31:27
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Mike, you are really stretching to attack me. I saw Tiger (in an
interview) question why the clubhouse was not OB. He admitted that the
course is marked funny. I have never once said that he did anything
outside the rules. The only time I have even approached that was when
that boulder was moved.

I do not hate Tiger.

The problem I have is that his shot was wild and ill advised. Not only
was he long, as has been mentioned, he was way off line to the right.
He was on the last hole of a very good round. Lay out in the fairway,
use the wedge to try to save par. I am reminded of what he got away
with on the 71st hole of last year's Masters. He could have blown the
whole tournment.

With his performance at Hoyloak, I thought he had gotten beyond these
wild recovery shots. I saw him as being on his way to a golden age of
wins during his 30's.

Ken

Mike Dalecki wrote:
> Bow Tie wrote:
> > I've never played a course where the clubhouse is not out of bounds.
> > Tiger even admits that in the press conference.
>
> Tiger "admitts" it? That sounds like he's guilty of something.
>
> Then again, in your mind, he probably is. Guilty of being better than
> Jack Nicklaus.
>
> I'll admit that.
>
>
> > At my old club, even
> > the halfway house was OB. He should have been hitting four from where
> > his tee shot ended up. Clearly a poor decision and ultimately was lucky
> > to make bogey. First poor decision since before the Open Championship.
>
> The problem you have--other than your Tiger hatred fetish--is that they
> didn't define the clubhouse OB before the tournament.
>
> As it was, Tiger used the rules to his advantage, as can you or any
> other golfer. Isn't that how golf is played?
>
> Or are you suggesting that you, in a fit of magnanimous generosity,
> during a match of some consequence, would voluntarily take an extra two
> strokes after defining something as out of bounds, not because it was
> OB, but because you felt it should be?
>
> Get over it, Ken. Tiger's the best ever. And even when he's lucky,
> that doesn't change anything.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
> RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
> RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Aug 2006 13:07:18
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Bow Tie wrote:

> Mike, you are really stretching to attack me.

Maybe it's not attacking. Maybe it's exposing.

I saw Tiger (in an
> interview) question why the clubhouse was not OB. He admitted that the
> course is marked funny.

He admitted it? Your choice of words is, well, interesting.

Know why? Because there is no objective way of determining what "marked
funny" means. If you'd said in his interview that Tiger said he thought
it was marked funny, that would be far different in the meaning you're
trying to project.

But whe you use those words--that he "admitted" something--you imply
that he got away with something, or that he knew he was wrong, or that
he is not deserving of the result.

> I have never once said that he did anything
> outside the rules. The only time I have even approached that was when
> that boulder was moved.

I never thought the boulder was outside the rules, though I thought that
the rule should be changed.

> I do not hate Tiger.

You have a strange way of projecting that neutrality.

> The problem I have

The problem *you* have?

> is that his shot was wild and ill advised. Not only
> was he long, as has been mentioned, he was way off line to the right.
> He was on the last hole of a very good round. Lay out in the fairway,
> use the wedge to try to save par. I am reminded of what he got away
> with on the 71st hole of last year's Masters. He could have blown the
> whole tournment.

Maybe. And maybe he's just human and screws up once in a while.

And why should you have a problem with it at all? You always seem to
have a problem with how Tiger plays. Either you don't like his decorum,
or language, or behavior, or shot selection, or mental game, or course
management, or....

And you say you do not hate Tiger?

> With his performance at Hoyloak, I thought he had gotten beyond these
> wild recovery shots. I saw him as being on his way to a golden age of
> wins during his 30's.

Maybe he thought he had a shot and just made a mistake. One shot in one
round--not a major--and you've changed your opinion of him?

From what?

Mike

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Aug 2006 05:17:31
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Bow Tie wrote:

> Why not bet something that a professor in a small college can afford,
> like $500? Fat assed blowhard? You must be talking about Dalecki.
>
> Dalecki is running around claiming to be a 7. I have a hard time
> believing that.

It's the cowardly response. If you really have the game, you just play. It's not a
money issue.

Date: 28 Aug 2006 06:48:26
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 05:17:31 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net >
wrote:

>Bow Tie wrote:
>
>> Why not bet something that a professor in a small college can afford,
>> like $500? Fat assed blowhard? You must be talking about Dalecki.
>>
>> Dalecki is running around claiming to be a 7. I have a hard time
>> believing that.
>
>It's the cowardly response. If you really have the game, you just play. It's not a
>money issue.

The cowardly response is not taking the bet, since you just wrote:

>Any decent golfer, me included could beat a phoney like the person in
>question. I've said similar many times and will say it many times in the future.

Seems to me that it's a lock for you, and easy money. You still are
a blowhard and a liar Rob. Step up and back up your bragging.
___,
\o

Date: 28 Aug 2006 16:25:44
From: larryrsf
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Bobby Knight wrote:

"You fucking trouble-maker."

Every thread ends with this sort of stuff-- and always authored by the
same nutcase RSG regulars. Very sad. Sickos spend the day at their
computer, salivating and posting poison as fast as they can type.

Larry

Date: 28 Aug 2006 19:41:32
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On 28 Aug 2006 16:25:44 -0700, "larryrsf" <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

>
>Bobby Knight wrote:
>
> "You fucking trouble-maker."
>
>Every thread ends with this sort of stuff-- and always authored by the
>same nutcase RSG regulars. Very sad. Sickos spend the day at their
>computer, salivating and posting poison as fast as they can type.
>
>Larry

It was a joke, and if you paid attention to anything except your
self-serving tripe, you'd know that.

Date: 28 Aug 2006 16:37:34
From: multi
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On 28 Aug 2006 16:25:44 -0700, "larryrsf" <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:
>Bobby Knight wrote:
>
> "You fucking trouble-maker."
>
>Every thread ends with this sort of stuff-- and always authored by the
>same nutcase RSG regulars. Very sad. Sickos spend the day at their
>computer, salivating and posting poison as fast as they can type.

I don't know Bobby, and I don't know Annika, and I have no idea who
this other guy is they are talking about, but I could still tell he
was joking. As I hope you were, when you implied that "nutcase RSG
regulars" doesn't include you.

Date: 27 Aug 2006 21:49:33
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Why not bet something that a professor in a small college can afford,
like $500? Fat assed blowhard? You must be talking about Dalecki.

Dalecki is running around claiming to be a 7. I have a hard time
believing that.

Ken

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 03:37:03 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >This whole line of bull is a diversion from sactimonious turkeys running down
> >Ken Pitts. Any decent golfer, me included could beat a phoney like the person in
> >question. I've said similar many times and will say it many times in the future.
> >
> >
> You fat assed blowhard. Does this mean that you take my bet? Funny
> how you have responses to my posts when you want to brag about your
> game, but when your bluff is called I'm invisible.
>
> The bet is $10,000. Put up or shut up.
> ___,
> \o
>

Date: 28 Aug 2006 07:28:57
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Bow Tie <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Why not bet something that a professor in a small college can afford,
> like $500? Fat assed blowhard? You must be talking about Dalecki.
>
> Dalecki is running around claiming to be a 7. I have a hard time
> believing that.

Me too. He looked more like a 3 when I played with him last month.
Sandbagging bastard. ;)

Don't let your feelings cloud your judgment. Two people you should
know to trust are now telling you that Mike has got game now. If
you haven't been practicing, he could take you. And you know what
high regard I have for your game.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 28 Aug 2006 20:16:11
From: Tex
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Fairway wrote:
> Robert Hamilton wrote:
> > My feeling is that it would be nice of these trolls would stop running down
> > people who say things they feel are somehow "incorrect". I'm tilting at
> > windmills to be sure, but I am known for my Quixotic nature, and there is no
> > advantagre to be gained by going against nature...especially for a
> > biologist. You gotta wonder though about people who politic to manipulate a
> > usenet newsgroup!
>
> Those are wise words. America may not be the free country it used to
> be, but the usenet is still free! F

Hey F F, what would you know about being free in America?
Last I checked, everyone was still free to do as they wish within the
confines of the law. Please state specifics if you know different.

Tex

Date: 28 Aug 2006 15:53:26
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Robert Hamilton wrote:
> My feeling is that it would be nice of these trolls would stop running down
> people who say things they feel are somehow "incorrect". I'm tilting at
> windmills to be sure, but I am known for my Quixotic nature, and there is no
> advantagre to be gained by going against nature...especially for a
> biologist. You gotta wonder though about people who politic to manipulate a
> usenet newsgroup!

Those are wise words. America may not be the free country it used to
be, but the usenet is still free! F

Date: 28 Aug 2006 22:19:46
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

annika1980 wrote:

> Bobby Knight wrote:
> > >Frostback calls himself a "total hacker." Who am I to argue with a
> > >professor?
> > >But I still think he's a nice guy.
> >
> > Of all people I would think that you'd take issue with someone making
> > such bragging statements and then not backing them up when confronted.
> > You never let crap like that go by.
>
> Had he challenged me my reaction might've been different. But since he
> has admitted he is a "total hacker" it's obvious he's just trying to
> get a rise out of you.

Knight keeps coming on like this, and yet I have always been willing to
play. No, I'm not going to play golf for $100,000 or whatever kooky number
he throws up as the red herring as a diversion to the fact that Dalecki is
afraid to just play. He is obviously just trolling to me.

I'll play just about anyone, as I have in the past. I've even played for as
much as 5 bucks per side in a nassau, and lost all 3 bets! I've also won all
three bets. I cannot beat billo for some reason. You saw me play da ringer,
and I would have had no problem playing that out, but we mutally decided to
forget about it very early. For me, the fact that he is a nice guy was the
factor of importance. I would still have played it out though, and paid
readily and without any malice and enjoyed the round as much had I lost as I
would have had I won. When is the last time one of these other characters
even played in one of these matches? That fact speaks for itself.

You are right in one thing...

My feeling is that it would be nice of these trolls would stop running down
people who say things they feel are somehow "incorrect". I'm tilting at
windmills to be sure, but I am known for my Quixotic nature, and there is no
advantagre to be gained by going against nature...especially for a
biologist. You gotta wonder though about people who politic to manipulate a
usenet newsgroup!

Date: 28 Aug 2006 17:45:09
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Attn-RSG (was Re: On top of the clubhouse?)

Attention RSG...this match will never happen, and it isn't because of
Daleck

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:19:46 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net >
wrote:

>Knight keeps coming on like this, and yet I have always been willing to
>play. No, I'm not going to play golf for $100,000 or whatever kooky number
>he throws up as the red herring as a diversion to the fact that Dalecki is
>afraid to just play. He is obviously just trolling to me.

You should be ashamed. There's no red herring, and certainly Dalecki
has no fear of your game. You overloaded your ass with your mouth
again...just like how you can match Tiger's shot at LaCosta. It isn't
worth the time or effort to put together this match for nothing. How
about this; we choose a course somewhere in between Mississippi and
Wisconsin. Play this match there, and the loser pays the winner's
expenses? I'm sure you'll find something wrong with that too, because
you will not play Dalecki.
>
>I'll play just about anyone, as I have in the past. I've even played for as
>much as 5 bucks per side in a nassau, and lost all 3 bets!

Don't even go there. There are players here that have 10 times that
amount at risk two or three times a week. Big deal.

Annika was right when he said you were just trying to get a rise out
of someone. That's usually called trolling.

i.
___,
\o

Date: 28 Aug 2006 17:43:01
From: long&left
Subject: Re: Attn-RSG (was Re: On top of the clubhouse?)

Bobby Knight wrote:
(snip)
>
> Don't even go there. There are players here that have 10 times that
> amount at risk two or three times a week. Big deal.
>

you mean, you can bet on golf? damn! ya learn something new every day :)

Date: 28 Aug 2006 14:32:34
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Bobby Knight wrote:
> >Frostback calls himself a "total hacker." Who am I to argue with a
> >professor?
> >But I still think he's a nice guy.
>
> Of all people I would think that you'd take issue with someone making
> such bragging statements and then not backing them up when confronted.
> You never let crap like that go by.

Had he challenged me my reaction might've been different. But since he
has admitted he is a "total hacker" it's obvious he's just trying to
get a rise out of you.
Who need Viagra?
>
>
> I don't think he's a nice guy, but you probably figured that out.

Just curious, how many rounds of golf have you played with Frostback?
I've played a few with him and he's very quiet and unassuming, the
total opposite of the image he projects here. And I think that is all
by design, so don't be so quick to judge.
Not everything in cyberland is what it seems.

BTW, anybody seen that psycho, Strulowitz, lately?

Date: 28 Aug 2006 16:43:07
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On 28 Aug 2006 14:32:34 -0700, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:

>
>Bobby Knight wrote:
>> >Frostback calls himself a "total hacker." Who am I to argue with a
>> >professor?
>> >But I still think he's a nice guy.
>>
>> Of all people I would think that you'd take issue with someone making
>> such bragging statements and then not backing them up when confronted.
>> You never let crap like that go by.
>
>Had he challenged me my reaction might've been different. But since he
>has admitted he is a "total hacker" it's obvious he's just trying to
>get a rise out of you.
>Who need Viagra?

Well, maybe not me specifically, and I know that it's a troll. I just
am giving him back what he deserves by lying about challenging
Dalecki.
>>
>> I don't think he's a nice guy, but you probably figured that out.
>
>Just curious, how many rounds of golf have you played with Frostback?
>I've played a few with him and he's very quiet and unassuming, the
>total opposite of the image he projects here. And I think that is all
>by design, so don't be so quick to judge.
>Not everything in cyberland is what it seems..

I only was around him at RSG-ATL, and had almost no direct contact. I
haven't been too quick to judge, because it's been several years of
his trolling that pisses me off.
>
>BTW, anybody seen that psycho, Strulowitz, lately?

You fucking trouble-maker.
___,
\o

Date: 29 Aug 2006 03:31:39
From: Tex
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Fairway wrote:
> Tex wrote:
> > Hey F F, what would you know about being free in America?
> > Last I checked, everyone was still free to do as they wish within the
> > confines of the law. Please state specifics if you know different.
>
> Political Correctness. F

I see, ok, I'll play your game. Please explain the laws that prevent
you from being "politically incorrect" ?

Can you pay a price for your "free speach" ?? Yes.
Will you being arrested for your "free speach" ?? No.

Now go play on the autobahn.

Tex

Date: 29 Aug 2006 00:13:42
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Tex wrote:
> Hey F F, what would you know about being free in America?
> Last I checked, everyone was still free to do as they wish within the
> confines of the law. Please state specifics if you know different.
Political Correctness. F

Date: 28 Aug 2006 10:00:46
From: Tex
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Bow Tie wrote:
> Why not bet something that a professor in a small college can afford,
> like $500? Fat assed blowhard? You must be talking about Dalecki.
>
> Dalecki is running around claiming to be a 7. I have a hard time
> believing that.

You'd better just shut your cake hole about handicaps and
"believability".

Tex

Date: 29 Aug 2006 03:42:55
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Bow Tie wrote:

> Fine whatever. Bobby Knight and Chris Bellomy both say you play better
> than me now. I suck. You and Koenig are champs. Happy posting.

...as long as he doesn't have to actually play, he can build his legend!

Date: 29 Aug 2006 03:50:12
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net > wrote:

> ...as long as he doesn't have to actually play, he can build his legend!

You're making zero sense. He actually played in front of
other rsg'ers recently. Have you?

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 28 Aug 2006 22:45:52
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 03:42:55 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net >
wrote:

>
>
>Bow Tie wrote:
>
>> Fine whatever. Bobby Knight and Chris Bellomy both say you play better
>> than me now. I suck. You and Koenig are champs. Happy posting.
>
>...as long as he doesn't have to actually play, he can build his legend!

...as long as you keep ducking him, your legend is the same; a
chickenshit blowhard.
___,
\o

Date: 28 Aug 2006 20:33:16
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Fine whatever. Bobby Knight and Chris Bellomy both say you play better
than me now. I suck. You and Koenig are champs. Happy posting.

Ken

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mike Dalecki wrote:
> Bow Tie wrote:
>
> > Like the pot calling the kettle black. Go ahead Mark, do your best.
> >
> > I say Dalecki is not single digit. And I say that you have never been a
> > one.
>
> Ouch! Ken, stop pummeling me! I can't take it any more. Your grasp of
> reality, the razor-sharp logic you wield, your ability to carry on in
> such an articulate fashion--all have beaten me to the ground.
>
> If you say I'm not a single digit, then I must not be.
>
> Would you write a letter to my club indicating the level of handicap you
> feel I warrant, and give your reasons why they should adjust my index
> higher? I'd greatly appreciate it, as it would assist in any
> handicapped competitions I'm involved in.
>
> Email me privately--I'll give you the address.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
> RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
> RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Aug 2006 20:22:31
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Like the pot calling the kettle black. Go ahead Mark, do your best.

I say Dalecki is not single digit. And I say that you have never been a
one.

Come make me "shut my cake hole". What a piece of work you are.

Ken

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tex wrote:
> Bow Tie wrote:
> > Why not bet something that a professor in a small college can afford,
> > like $500? Fat assed blowhard? You must be talking about Dalecki.
> >
> > Dalecki is running around claiming to be a 7. I have a hard time
> > believing that.
>
> You'd better just shut your cake hole about handicaps and
> "believability".
>
> Tex

Date: 28 Aug 2006 22:30:31
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Bow Tie wrote:

> Like the pot calling the kettle black. Go ahead Mark, do your best.
>
> I say Dalecki is not single digit. And I say that you have never been a
> one.

Ouch! Ken, stop pummeling me! I can't take it any more. Your grasp of
reality, the razor-sharp logic you wield, your ability to carry on in
such an articulate fashion--all have beaten me to the ground.

If you say I'm not a single digit, then I must not be.

Would you write a letter to my club indicating the level of handicap you
feel I warrant, and give your reasons why they should adjust my index
higher? I'd greatly appreciate it, as it would assist in any
handicapped competitions I'm involved in.

Email me privately--I'll give you the address.

Mike

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Aug 2006 07:38:00
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On 28-Aug-2006, "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com > wrote:

> I say Dalecki is not single digit. And I say that you have never been a
> one.

And yet, here it is in HTML!

http://tinyurl.com/m8d2u

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 29 Aug 2006 03:27:30
From: Tex
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Bow Tie wrote:
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Tex wrote:
> > Bow Tie wrote:
> > > Why not bet something that a professor in a small college can afford,
> > > like $500? Fat assed blowhard? You must be talking about Dalecki.
> > >
> > > Dalecki is running around claiming to be a 7. I have a hard time
> > > believing that.
> >
> > You'd better just shut your cake hole about handicaps and
> > "believability".
> >
> > Tex
> Like the pot calling the kettle black. Go ahead Mark, do your best.

Oh, I forgot..."everyone is picking on me" poor Kenny....

> I say Dalecki is not single digit. And I say that you have never been a
> one.

Think whatever you like. Nothing is stopping you from being wrong. I
think you enjoy being wrong, it helps you foster your "everyone is
picking on me" attitude.
If you'd like to test my game, show up, put up or shut the fuck up. Of
course, I know you'll do neither of those...you don't have the balls.

> Come make me "shut my cake hole". What a piece of work you are.

I'm sorry, I was wrong. You'd never shut your cake hole because you
enjoy stuffing it too much.

FTR, FatBoy Kenny who enjoys bragging about how low his hanidcap was
and how many low scores he had *in the past* also *CLAIMED* to be an
EIGHT handicap in his last RSG-NW. Now ask yourself, why would a
supposed "great player who has more rounds in the 60's than some have
below 100" would come to a RSG event with an EIGHT handicap?

I'll answer....You are a fucking sandbagging piece of shit!
You always have been. You were caught red handed when you blitzed
through the Prestonwood Member/Guest. I'm also sure you bagged your
way through the Texas BBq circuit.

Tex

Date: 01 Sep 2006 14:04:21
From: Dene
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Tex wrote:
> Dene wrote:
> > Tex wrote:
> > >
> > > Think whatever you like. Nothing is stopping you from being wrong. I
> > > think you enjoy being wrong, it helps you foster your "everyone is
> > > picking on me" attitude.
> > > If you'd like to test my game, show up, put up or shut the fuck up. Of
> > > course, I know you'll do neither of those...you don't have the balls.
> >
> > And yet he beat you, head to head, straight up, at RSG-NW. I seem to
> > recall him collecting some $$ from you.
>
> Aha, Mr. "I will never return" has once again returned.
>
> Playing in another group does not satisfy the requirement of "head to
> head".
>
> Tex

Fine...score against score, proving once again that Ken Pitts is a
better golfer and person than you'll ever be.

-Greg

Ps. Glad to know my return irritates you.

Date: 01 Sep 2006 14:04:03
From: Dene
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Date: 01 Sep 2006 13:41:33
From: Tex
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Dene wrote:
> Tex wrote:
> >
> > Think whatever you like. Nothing is stopping you from being wrong. I
> > think you enjoy being wrong, it helps you foster your "everyone is
> > picking on me" attitude.
> > If you'd like to test my game, show up, put up or shut the fuck up. Of
> > course, I know you'll do neither of those...you don't have the balls.
>
> And yet he beat you, head to head, straight up, at RSG-NW. I seem to
> recall him collecting some $$ from you.

Aha, Mr. "I will never return" has once again returned.

Playing in another group does not satisfy the requirement of "head to
head".

Tex

Date: 01 Sep 2006 13:30:39
From: Dene
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Tex wrote:
>
> Think whatever you like. Nothing is stopping you from being wrong. I
> think you enjoy being wrong, it helps you foster your "everyone is
> picking on me" attitude.
> If you'd like to test my game, show up, put up or shut the fuck up. Of
> course, I know you'll do neither of those...you don't have the balls.

And yet he beat you, head to head, straight up, at RSG-NW. I seem to
recall him collecting some $$ from you.

-Greg

Date: 27 Aug 2006 07:57:47
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

David wrote:
> The boulder incident still burns my
> ass. The ruling was not correct at that time, either.
>
>
> I have heard all of the arguments that were pro-woods as this was
> discussed in depth in RSG when it happened, so I don't need to hear
> the arguments now.

If you really did hear those arguments then you know the ruling was
exactly correct.
Perhaps there is something else to account for the burning in your ass?

Date: 27 Aug 2006 21:56:22
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

So, it's OK for him to tear up a green at the US Open? It's OK for him
to throw clubs repeatedly this week? I'll put you down with the rest of
the apologists.

Ken

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wayne wrote:
> kenpittsjr@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Take this thread for instance. Anyone who plays the game (Annika for
> > instance) knows that Tiger was lucky to escape with bogey from that
> > poor play. I state the obvious and I get attacked for it.
> >
> > Why is it vitriol to react to what I see that I don't like. How about
> > this for instance?
> >
> >
> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/golf/specials/us_open/2005/06/17/woods.round2.ap/index.html
>
> Oh. My. God. You're still at it with this? Randy was right...
>
> Wayne
> --
> www.nhlfa.com
> "There are only two things I can't stand in this world: people who are
> intolerant of other peoples' cultures, and the Dutch."
> -Nigel Powers

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 27 Aug 2006 21:20:02
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Whoever you are, I do not hate Tiger.

They have some screwed up rules on the tour. Why don't they just award
him a birdie and go to the next hole?

Ken

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
rich wrote:
> "long&left" <nospam@diespammers.com> wrote in message
> news:ENqIg.5646$wR3.2926@newsfe07.lga...
> > kenpittsjr@gmail.com wrote:
> >> I D NOT HATE TIGER.
> >>
> >> Tiger wa not right to play that shot, if the cook does not retrieve the
> >> ball, Tiger gets a lost ball penalty, same as OB. It was a poor
> >> decision. And it was luacy that the clubhouse was not marked as OB (not
> >> Tiger's fault).
> >>
> >> Ken
> >
> > ?? if the cook does not retrieve the ball they would have found the ball
> > ??
>
> What many people don't realize is that if the ball had not been found it
> would have been lost in an immovable obstruction for which relief is
> provided. This would have resulted in Tiger getting a drop 30-60 yards
> closer than the actual drop.
>
> http://www.worldgolfchampionships.com/news/story/r476/9620232
>
> Excerpt:
>
> Q. What would have happened if you hadn't found a ball?
>
> MIKE SHEA: If we hadn't found a ball, then we would have operated under a
> rule that deals with a ball lost in an obstruction, the obstruction being
> the clubhouse, and there's another rule procedure, and Tiger would have
> dropped the ball somewhere between the grandstand and the clubhouse where
> the ball would have entered on top of the clubhouse, the nearest point of
> relief from that. Once he dropped that ball, then he would have taken relief
> from the grandstand behind the 9 green. So he probably would have ended up
> playing his shot closer to the green than what he did, but it would have
> been towards the same on the same angle, but it would have been 30, 40, 50
> yards closer to the flag stick probably.
>
> Anyone who doesn't understand this much about the facts and the rules isn't
> really interested in anything but providing additional pretext for their
> hating. Ken is a hater of long standing.
>
> Rich

Date: 27 Aug 2006 21:16:42
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

I forgot more about the game than you will ever know. I have more
rounds under par than you do under 100.

Tiger and Phil - both forcing the issue when they should be playing
safe.

Ken

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Big_Fan wrote:
> > You don't know squat about the game. Tiger's and Phil's mistakes are
> > the same with one exception, Tiger had time to recover and ultimately
> > he won the event.
>
> Tiger's and Phil's decisions are miles apart. You are obviously the one
> who doesn't know anything about the game. 90% of the tour pros will
> take that shot over that tree if they think they can hit it that high.
> You're just a Tiger-basher.
>
> > "He chose the wrong club and caught a flyer. It happens." So typical of
> > the Tiger worshiper. It could not have possibly been Tiger's fault. He
> > is so perfect, he never makes a mistake.
>
> He hit a poor shot. That was a mistake.

Date: 27 Aug 2006 18:18:01
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

> You don't know squat about the game. Tiger's and Phil's mistakes are
> the same with one exception, Tiger had time to recover and ultimately
> he won the event.

Tiger's and Phil's decisions are miles apart. You are obviously the one
who doesn't know anything about the game. 90% of the tour pros will
take that shot over that tree if they think they can hit it that high.
You're just a Tiger-basher.

> "He chose the wrong club and caught a flyer. It happens." So typical of
> the Tiger worshiper. It could not have possibly been Tiger's fault. He
> is so perfect, he never makes a mistake.

He hit a poor shot. That was a mistake.

Date: 27 Aug 2006 18:14:51
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

kenpittsjr@gmail.com wrote:
> The time to try that shot is when you are shots behind on the back nine
> of the final round and you care nothing about anything but winning.
> That is when you go for that shot.

That's your opinion. I'll take mine, as well as Tiger's.

Date: 28 Aug 2006 14:23:52
From: rich
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

"Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1156727691.194705.233590@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> kenpittsjr@gmail.com wrote:
>> The time to try that shot is when you are shots behind on the back nine
>> of the final round and you care nothing about anything but winning.
>> That is when you go for that shot.
>
> That's your opinion. I'll take mine, as well as Tiger's.
>
If MIke is a hack compared to Ken, doesn't that mean that Ken is a hack
compared to Tiger? And doesn't that mean, by the standard Ken applies
between himself and Mike, that in every aspect of human existence Tiger is
superior to Ken? Including shot selection?

Rich (a hack compared to Mike)

Date: 27 Aug 2006 17:22:44
From:
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

I D NOT HATE TIGER.

Tiger wa not right to play that shot, if the cook does not retrieve the
ball, Tiger gets a lost ball penalty, same as OB. It was a poor
decision. And it was luacy that the clubhouse was not marked as OB (not
Tiger's fault).

Ken

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carbon wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 11:39:11 -0700, Bow Tie wrote:
>
> > Thank you for being reasonable, unlike Dalecki.
>
> For suggesting Tiger was right to play the shot when it was not marked OB?
> Or for asking if you you have donated a couple of shots to your opponents
> if you weren't required to? Or was it observing that your hatred of Tiger
> borders on the irrational?

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 27 Aug 2006 17:29:27
From: long&left
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

kenpittsjr@gmail.com wrote:
> I D NOT HATE TIGER.
>
> Tiger wa not right to play that shot, if the cook does not retrieve the
> ball, Tiger gets a lost ball penalty, same as OB. It was a poor
> decision. And it was luacy that the clubhouse was not marked as OB (not
> Tiger's fault).
>
> Ken

?? if the cook does not retrieve the ball they would have found the ball ??

Date: 28 Aug 2006 00:43:17
From: rich
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

"long&left" <nospam@diespammers.com > wrote in message
news:ENqIg.5646$wR3.2926@newsfe07.lga...
> kenpittsjr@gmail.com wrote:
>> I D NOT HATE TIGER.
>>
>> Tiger wa not right to play that shot, if the cook does not retrieve the
>> ball, Tiger gets a lost ball penalty, same as OB. It was a poor
>> decision. And it was luacy that the clubhouse was not marked as OB (not
>> Tiger's fault).
>>
>> Ken
>
> ?? if the cook does not retrieve the ball they would have found the ball
> ??

What many people don't realize is that if the ball had not been found it
would have been lost in an immovable obstruction for which relief is
provided. This would have resulted in Tiger getting a drop 30-60 yards
closer than the actual drop.

http://www.worldgolfchampionships.com/news/story/r476/9620232

Excerpt:

Q. What would have happened if you hadn't found a ball?

MIKE SHEA: If we hadn't found a ball, then we would have operated under a
rule that deals with a ball lost in an obstruction, the obstruction being
the clubhouse, and there's another rule procedure, and Tiger would have
dropped the ball somewhere between the grandstand and the clubhouse where
the ball would have entered on top of the clubhouse, the nearest point of
relief from that. Once he dropped that ball, then he would have taken relief
from the grandstand behind the 9 green. So he probably would have ended up
playing his shot closer to the green than what he did, but it would have
been towards the same on the same angle, but it would have been 30, 40, 50
yards closer to the flag stick probably.

Anyone who doesn't understand this much about the facts and the rules isn't
really interested in anything but providing additional pretext for their
hating. Ken is a hater of long standing.

Rich

Date: 28 Aug 2006 00:11:42
From: OldSailor
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

"rich" <dummy@nothere.com > wrote
>
> Q. What would have happened if you hadn't found a ball?
>
> MIKE SHEA: If we hadn't found a ball, then we would have operated under a
> rule that deals with a ball lost in an obstruction, the obstruction being
> the clubhouse, and there's another rule procedure, and Tiger would have
> dropped the ball somewhere between the grandstand and the clubhouse where
> the ball would have entered on top of the clubhouse, the nearest point of
> relief from that. Once he dropped that ball, then he would have taken
relief
> from the grandstand behind the 9 green. So he probably would have ended up
> playing his shot closer to the green than what he did, but it would have
> been towards the same on the same angle, but it would have been 30, 40, 50
> yards closer to the flag stick probably.
>
> Anyone who doesn't understand this much about the facts and the rules
isn't
> really interested in anything but providing additional pretext for their
> hating. Ken is a hater of long standing.
>
> Rich

Question: IS the Clubhouse defined as an immovable obstruction? Where are
the FACTS about this?

Considering it was not defined as OB, I doubt it has any definition, which
means that it is "through the green" which means that even if the ball is in
the bar or ladies washroom, you get to PLAY the ball, even if you have to
open a window and even that is allowed and has been done!

Date: 28 Aug 2006 00:18:54
From: sfb
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

The ROG defines the clubhouse as an immovable obstruction. The committee
need do nothing.

Obstructions
An �obstruction�� is anything artificial, including the artificial surfaces
and sides of roads and paths and manufactured
ice, except:
a. Objects defining out of bounds, such as walls, fences, stakes and
railings;
b. Any part of an immovable artificial object that is out of bounds; and
c. Any construction declared by the Committee to be an integral part of
the course.

An obstruction is a movable obstruction if it may be moved without
unreasonable effort, without unduly delaying play and without causing
damage. Otherwise it is an immovable obstruction.

"OldSailor" <OldSailor@anywhere.net > wrote in message
news:m3uIg.4017$ED.2756@read2.cgocable.net...
>
> "rich" <dummy@nothere.com> wrote
>>
>> Q. What would have happened if you hadn't found a ball?
>>
>> MIKE SHEA: If we hadn't found a ball, then we would have operated under a
>> rule that deals with a ball lost in an obstruction, the obstruction being
>> the clubhouse, and there's another rule procedure, and Tiger would have
>> dropped the ball somewhere between the grandstand and the clubhouse where
>> the ball would have entered on top of the clubhouse, the nearest point of
>> relief from that. Once he dropped that ball, then he would have taken
> relief
>> from the grandstand behind the 9 green. So he probably would have ended
>> up
>> playing his shot closer to the green than what he did, but it would have
>> been towards the same on the same angle, but it would have been 30, 40,
>> 50
>> yards closer to the flag stick probably.
>>
>> Anyone who doesn't understand this much about the facts and the rules
> isn't
>> really interested in anything but providing additional pretext for their
>> hating. Ken is a hater of long standing.
>>
>> Rich
>
> Question: IS the Clubhouse defined as an immovable obstruction? Where are
> the FACTS about this?
>
> Considering it was not defined as OB, I doubt it has any definition, which
> means that it is "through the green" which means that even if the ball is
> in
> the bar or ladies washroom, you get to PLAY the ball, even if you have to
> open a window and even that is allowed and has been done!
>
>
>

Date: 28 Aug 2006 00:29:09
From: OldSailor
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

sbf,
The ROG define an immovable obstruction but say nothing in particular about
a clubhouse.

It says:

" c. Any construction declared by the Committee to be an integral part of
the course." is NOT an immovable obstruction.

I don't think we know if Firestone have defined the status of the clubhouse
or not.

If they have not, you are right, it could then be assumed to be an
obstruction.

But there are instances where player played off roofs and from within
buildings (according to the commentators anyway - The Open, I think they
said) - wonder what the situations were there?

Amazing for such a prestigious club to not have this worked out ahead of
time. Even our 2nd rate club has a white line and drop zones behind the 18th
green (and I have hit the clubhouse!)

"sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote

> The ROG defines the clubhouse as an immovable obstruction. The committee
> need do nothing.
>
> Obstructions
> An �obstruction�� is anything artificial, including the artificial
surfaces
> and sides of roads and paths and manufactured
> ice, except:
> a. Objects defining out of bounds, such as walls, fences, stakes and
> railings;
> b. Any part of an immovable artificial object that is out of bounds; and
> c. Any construction declared by the Committee to be an integral part of
> the course.
>

Date: 28 Aug 2006 14:21:42
From: rich
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

"OldSailor" <OldSailor@anywhere.net > wrote in message
news:IjuIg.4018$ED.3624@read2.cgocable.net...
> sbf,
> The ROG define an immovable obstruction but say nothing in particular
> about
> a clubhouse.
>
> It says:
>
> " c. Any construction declared by the Committee to be an integral part of
> the course." is NOT an immovable obstruction.
>
> I don't think we know if Firestone have defined the status of the
> clubhouse
> or not.

Yes we do, because the officials would have known that and they treated it
as an obstruction.

>
> If they have not, you are right, it could then be assumed to be an
> obstruction.
>
> But there are instances where player played off roofs and from within
> buildings (according to the commentators anyway - The Open, I think they
> said) - wonder what the situations were there?

Yes, because taking relief is not mandatory. Did you read the interview?
They talked about a player who played off a roof in another tournament
because he didn;t like where the relief drop would have ended up.

>
> Amazing for such a prestigious club to not have this worked out ahead of
> time. Even our 2nd rate club has a white line and drop zones behind the
> 18th
> green (and I have hit the clubhouse!)
>

They do have it worked out. You just don't seem to like how they worked it
out.

Rich

Date: 28 Aug 2006 10:41:08
From: OldSailor
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

"rich" <dummy@nothere.com > wrote
> > I don't think we know if Firestone have defined the status of the
> > clubhouse
> > or not.
>
> Yes we do, because the officials would have known that and they treated it
> as an obstruction.

You are making an assumption that THEY knew - But WE do not and don't know
if they made anassumption or had a definitive ruling!

>
> They do have it worked out. You just don't seem to like how they worked
it
> out.

You are again making a wild assumption. I am only interested in the rules
and how they are applied - I don't care a fig about the actual outcome.

But, you seem to be something of an A$$hole so discussion ends right here
for me! Click Click - as I unsubscribe from rsg again!

Date: 28 Aug 2006 07:55:21
From: multi
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:41:08 -0400, "OldSailor"
<OldSailor@anywhere.net > wrote:

>But, you seem to be something of an A$$hole so discussion ends right here
>for me! Click Click - as I unsubscribe from rsg again!

Get a room with the other old sailor.

Date: 28 Aug 2006 20:25:15
From: rich
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

"OldSailor" <OldSailor@anywhere.net > wrote in message
news:rhDIg.1172$sS1.240@read1.cgocable.net...
>
> You are again making a wild assumption. I am only interested in the rules
> and how they are applied - I don't care a fig about the actual outcome.
>
> But, you seem to be something of an A$$hole so discussion ends right here
> for me! Click Click - as I unsubscribe from rsg again!
>

Do I get brownie points for chasing this guy away?

Rich

Date: 28 Aug 2006 15:48:17
From: Harrison Bergeron
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

"rich" <dummy@nothere.com > writes:

> "OldSailor" <OldSailor@anywhere.net> wrote in message
> news:rhDIg.1172$sS1.240@read1.cgocable.net...
> >
> > You are again making a wild assumption. I am only interested in the rules
> > and how they are applied - I don't care a fig about the actual outcome.
> >
> > But, you seem to be something of an A$$hole so discussion ends right here
> > for me! Click Click - as I unsubscribe from rsg again!
> >
>
> Do I get brownie points for chasing this guy away?

Given the opportunity, I'll buy you a beer.

--

<-- Harry -- >

Date: 29 Aug 2006 03:36:00
From: rich
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

"Harrison Bergeron" <not_a_valid@address.com > wrote in message
news:bark64spoxa.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> "rich" <dummy@nothere.com> writes:
>
>> "OldSailor" <OldSailor@anywhere.net> wrote in message
>> news:rhDIg.1172$sS1.240@read1.cgocable.net...
>> >
>> > You are again making a wild assumption. I am only interested in the
>> > rules
>> > and how they are applied - I don't care a fig about the actual outcome.
>> >
>> > But, you seem to be something of an A$$hole so discussion ends right
>> > here
>> > for me! Click Click - as I unsubscribe from rsg again!
>> >
>>
>> Do I get brownie points for chasing this guy away?
>
> Given the opportunity, I'll buy you a beer.

Thanks, I hope the opportunity arises. I've got the second round.

Rich

Date: 27 Aug 2006 18:47:36
From: multi
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 00:43:17 GMT, "rich" <dummy@nothere.com > wrote:
>"long&left" <nospam@diespammers.com> wrote in message
>news:ENqIg.5646$wR3.2926@newsfe07.lga...
>> kenpittsjr@gmail.com wrote:
>>> I D NOT HATE TIGER.
>>>
>>> Tiger wa not right to play that shot, if the cook does not retrieve the
>>> ball, Tiger gets a lost ball penalty, same as OB. It was a poor
>>> decision. And it was luacy that the clubhouse was not marked as OB (not
>>> Tiger's fault).
>>>
>>> Ken
>>
>> ?? if the cook does not retrieve the ball they would have found the ball
>> ??
>
>What many people don't realize is that if the ball had not been found it
>would have been lost in an immovable obstruction for which relief is
>provided. This would have resulted in Tiger getting a drop 30-60 yards
>closer than the actual drop.

Sheesh, I even posted the applicable rules verbatim. I guess Pitts
really has forgotten more about golf than I know.

Date: 28 Aug 2006 00:06:49
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

kenpittsjr@gmail.com wrote:

> I call 'em like I see 'em. I didn't see any temper antics from Tiger at
> the Open Championship and his play was brilliant.
>
> How about giving me a break instead of farming me out to be a Klan
> member? I would like to be able to participate in this, but constantly
> being attacked makes it difficult.
>
> Ken
>

This type of person lives to render personal judgement on others based on
whatever whim siezes them. He will never give you a break. If nothing else, this
guy whose peer group (as far as we know anyways) is 100% white/euro, and almost
all male (the odd wife goes to some of these social events) needs to berate
someone like you to have any sort of liberal/progressive credentials. "Defending"
Woods somehow makes him feel like he is enlightened and contributing to racial
equity, and since its all he has in that area, its really important to him. So no
way he will "let" you criticize Woods.

The guy is a troll. Ignore him. You have every right to think what you will of
Woods, and you are not responsible to these trolls for whatever views you have,
and race has nothing to do with it.

PS..it's also important to him to think he is some sort of "good golfer". That he
has backed down when I, an admitted hack, have challenged him notwithstanding.

Date: 27 Aug 2006 20:54:59
From: Stu D. Baker
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Robert Hamilton wrote:
>
> kenpittsjr@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I call 'em like I see 'em. I didn't see any temper antics from Tiger at
>> the Open Championship and his play was brilliant.
>>
>> How about giving me a break instead of farming me out to be a Klan
>> member? I would like to be able to participate in this, but constantly
>> being attacked makes it difficult.
>>
>> Ken
>>
>
> This type of person lives to render personal judgement on others based on
> whatever whim siezes them. He will never give you a break. If nothing else, this
> guy whose peer group (as far as we know anyways) is 100% white/euro, and almost
> all male (the odd wife goes to some of these social events) needs to berate
> someone like you to have any sort of liberal/progressive credentials. "Defending"
> Woods somehow makes him feel like he is enlightened and contributing to racial
> equity, and since its all he has in that area, its really important to him. So no
> way he will "let" you criticize Woods.
>
> The guy is a troll. Ignore him. You have every right to think what you will of
> Woods, and you are not responsible to these trolls for whatever views you have,
> and race has nothing to do with it.
>
> PS..it's also important to him to think he is some sort of "good golfer". That he
> has backed down when I, an admitted hack, have challenged him notwithstanding.
>

Can you cite the post(s) where you challenged Mike and he backed down?

--
Stu

Date: 28 Aug 2006 02:35:13
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

"Stu D. Baker" wrote:

>
> Can you cite the post(s) where you challenged Mike and he backed down?
>
> --

The issue is the hypocritical sanctimonious attacks on Ken Pitts, but.....

Nope, whoever you are. Ask Greer for one case. If he denies he lies. I know at least
some of what I have done and haven't done. If you think I am lying, fine by me. The
person in question also said I was stupid and uneducated and then did not take me up on
an academic challenge either, which says it all me. It's a free country though, and you
can take whatever as you will, whoever you are. Funny how you have to post via an anon
to get this response! Hypocritical too?

Date: 27 Aug 2006 21:04:00
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

"Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net > wrote in message
news:44F254B0.B639A938@att.net...
>
>
> "Stu D. Baker" wrote:
>
>>
>> Can you cite the post(s) where you challenged Mike and he backed down?
>>
>> --
>
> The issue is the hypocritical sanctimonious attacks on Ken Pitts, but.....
>
> Nope, whoever you are. Ask Greer for one case. If he denies he lies. I
> know at least
> some of what I have done and haven't done. If you think I am lying, fine
> by me. The
> person in question also said I was stupid and uneducated and then did not
> take me up on
> an academic challenge either, which says it all me. It's a free country
> though, and you
> can take whatever as you will, whoever you are. Funny how you have to post
> via an anon
> to get this response! Hypocritical too?
>
>

Ask me what?

Date: 27 Aug 2006 22:26:30
From: Stu D. Baker
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Robert Hamilton wrote:
>
> "Stu D. Baker" wrote:
>
>> Can you cite the post(s) where you challenged Mike and he backed down?
>>
>> --
>
> The issue is the hypocritical sanctimonious attacks on Ken Pitts, but.....

That may be *your* issue and interpretation. My issue is your claim of
a challenge to Mike to which he allegedly backed down.

>
> Nope, whoever you are.

Alright, then.

<snip poor attempt at a diversion >

--

Stu

Date: 28 Aug 2006 03:37:03
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

"Stu D. Baker" wrote:

> Robert Hamilton wrote:
> >
> > "Stu D. Baker" wrote:
> >
> >> Can you cite the post(s) where you challenged Mike and he backed down?
> >>
> >> --
> >
> > The issue is the hypocritical sanctimonious attacks on Ken Pitts, but.....
>
> That may be *your* issue and interpretation. My issue is your claim of
> a challenge to Mike to which he allegedly backed down.
>
> >
> > Nope, whoever you are.
>
> Alright, then.
>
> <snip poor attempt at a diversion>
>
> --

This whole line of bull is a diversion from sactimonious turkeys running down
Ken Pitts. Any decent golfer, me included could beat a phoney like the person in
question. I've said similar many times and will say it many times in the future.

Date: 27 Aug 2006 23:24:21
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 03:37:03 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net >
wrote:

>
>This whole line of bull is a diversion from sactimonious turkeys running down
>Ken Pitts. Any decent golfer, me included could beat a phoney like the person in
>question. I've said similar many times and will say it many times in the future.
>
>
You fat assed blowhard. Does this mean that you take my bet? Funny
how you have responses to my posts when you want to brag about your
game, but when your bluff is called I'm invisible.

The bet is $10,000. Put up or shut up.
___,
\o

Date: 28 Aug 2006 15:23:17
From:
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

In article <44F2632E.3AA1662E@att.net >, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
wrote:

> "Stu D. Baker" wrote:
>
> > Robert Hamilton wrote:
> > >
> > > "Stu D. Baker" wrote:
> > >
> > >> Can you cite the post(s) where you challenged Mike and he backed down?
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >
> > > The issue is the hypocritical sanctimonious attacks on Ken Pitts,
> > > but.....
> >
> > That may be *your* issue and interpretation. My issue is your claim of
> > a challenge to Mike to which he allegedly backed down.
> >
> > >
> > > Nope, whoever you are.
> >
> > Alright, then.
> >
> > <snip poor attempt at a diversion>
> >
> > --
>
> This whole line of bull is a diversion from sactimonious turkeys running down
> Ken Pitts. Any decent golfer, me included could beat a phoney like the person
> in
> question. I've said similar many times and will say it many times in the
> future.

And your ability to beat anyone at golf is meaningless to the validity
of your or anyone's opinion, whether about golf or anything else. The
argument to authority is meaningless. You should know this.

B. Martin

Date: 27 Aug 2006 21:47:26
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 02:35:13 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net >
wrote:

>
>
>"Stu D. Baker" wrote:
>
>>
>> Can you cite the post(s) where you challenged Mike and he backed down?
>>
>> --
>
>The issue is the hypocritical sanctimonious attacks on Ken Pitts, but.....
>
>Nope, whoever you are. Ask Greer for one case. If he denies he lies. I know at least
>some of what I have done and haven't done. If you think I am lying, fine by me. The
>person in question also said I was stupid and uneducated and then did not take me up on
>an academic challenge either, which says it all me. It's a free country though, and you
>can take whatever as you will, whoever you are. Funny how you have to post via an anon
>to get this response! Hypocritical too?
>

There was never a challenge to Dalecki by you, because the c-list
would never have stopped laughing, or posting hilarious replies to you
about it. You never could've beat him.

Do you accept my bet? Odds are the answer is no....for good reason.
___,
\o

Date: 27 Aug 2006 21:43:44
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Robert Hamilton wrote:

>
> "Stu D. Baker" wrote:
>
>
>>Can you cite the post(s) where you challenged Mike and he backed down?
>>
>>--
>
>
> The issue is the hypocritical sanctimonious attacks on Ken Pitts, but.....
>
> Nope, whoever you are. Ask Greer for one case. If he denies he lies. I know at least
> some of what I have done and haven't done. If you think I am lying, fine by me. The
> person in question also said I was stupid and uneducated and then did not take me up on
> an academic challenge either, which says it all me. It's a free country though, and you
> can take whatever as you will, whoever you are. Funny how you have to post via an anon
> to get this response! Hypocritical too?
>
>

The issue is your claim about me. It's put up time, or be exposed as a
liar.

Innuendo backed up by....nothing. Do you have trouble sleeping at night?

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Aug 2006 12:01:22
From: Tex
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

annika1980 wrote:
> Thor wrote:
> > > > > between them. I doubt that'll ever happen, but who knows? RSG-OHIO is
> > > > > just around the corner.
> > > >
> > > > Coming?
> > > >
> > > Nah, just breathin hard.
> >
> > Get out of your cart too quickly?
>
> Nah, just had to tie my shoe. Give me a minute and I'll be fine.
> Yes, it's true, slim ... I've probably gained as much weight as you've
> lost.
> I went back to visit my old golf course the other day and listened to
> everyone bust my chops about how fat I was. One guy said, "Damn, where
> have you been eatin, boy?"
> I said, "Everywhere!" You think there might be a correlation between
> me quitting golf and gaining weight? Oh well, that's what I get for
> marrying a good cook. I think I've gained about 50 pounds since I got
> married.
>
> So how did you lose your weight? Lots of walking?
>
> BTW, how can RSG-OHIO retain it's Major status when it isn't even
> publicized? I had to dig thru a Google search to even find the dates.
> No info that I could find about the costs, either. You guys tryin to
> keep the riff-raff out or somethin?
> My main gripe with RSG-OHIO, however, is that it's played in OHIO.
>
> On a related note, will the rising gas prices affect attendance at RSG
> events?
> It now costs someone like me or Bill-o more for gas to get there than
> it does for lodging.

Rising gas costs? Where? Last I looked the wholesale price of gas was
below $1.80 which puts it at an average of $2.40 at the pump....I'm
sure by after Labor day we'll see a nice drop...it's already hovering
in the mid $2.60's in Texas

Tex
p.s. to lose weight there are 2 simple steps...1) eat less, 2) exercise
more
1) is obtained by never eating a portion of food that won't fit in your
hand
2) walk 1-2 miles each day

Date: 27 Aug 2006 20:26:20
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 00:06:49 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net >
wrote:

Re: Mike Dalecki:
>PS..it's also important to him to think he is some sort of "good golfer". That he
>has backed down when I, an admitted hack, have challenged him notwithstanding.

Tell you what Frosy. I have ten grand that says you can't beat Mike
at golf. Bet? If so, I'll do whatever it takes to put it together.

Let's see who backs down.
___,
\o

Date: 27 Aug 2006 20:30:03
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Bobby Knight wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 00:06:49 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
> wrote:
>
> Re: Mike Dalecki:
>
>>PS..it's also important to him to think he is some sort of "good golfer". That he
>>has backed down when I, an admitted hack, have challenged him notwithstanding.
>
>
> Tell you what Frosy. I have ten grand that says you can't beat Mike
> at golf. Bet? If so, I'll do whatever it takes to put it together.
>
> Let's see who backs down.
> ___,
> \o
>

Date: 27 Aug 2006 20:34:13
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:30:03 -0500, Mike Dalecki <mike@dalecki.net >
wrote:

>Bobby Knight wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 00:06:49 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Re: Mike Dalecki:
>>
>>>PS..it's also important to him to think he is some sort of "good golfer". That he
>>>has backed down when I, an admitted hack, have challenged him notwithstanding.
>>
>>
>> Tell you what Frosy. I have ten grand that says you can't beat Mike
>> at golf. Bet? If so, I'll do whatever it takes to put it together.
>>
>> Let's see who backs down.

>> bk
>
>This is interesting. I don't ever remember being challenged by
>Frostbrain.
>
>Do you, Bobby?
>
>Mike

I can't imagine him challenging anyone. He talks a big game though.
___,
\o

Date: 28 Aug 2006 17:46:40
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Thor wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
>
> > between them. I doubt that'll ever happen, but who knows? RSG-OHIO is
> > just around the corner.
>
>
> Coming?
>

Nah, just breathin hard.

Date: 29 Aug 2006 18:28:53
From: Thor
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Fairway wrote:
> Tex wrote:
> > No thugs allowed....in fact, you can't move anything...a rake in
> > bunker, stays...a cart parked next to the green, stays...either you hit
> > the shot or pick up. If you opponent can hole out, you lose the hole.
> > If your opponent can't hole out, the halve is halved.
> >
> > Simple. Fun. Quick!
>
> Dammit, this sounds better and better! I=B4m dead tired of all those
> free drops and exceptions. Play the course as it is. Lucky or not so
> lucky, it=B4s our own fucking business and nobody fucking cares. This is
> for real! I=B4m sure to introduce this brilliant format in my goup
> soonest. Many thanks, F.

Come join us!

Okay, I know you are in Europe somewhere.... but Match Play Madness has
been
played overseas... in Scotland. At St. Andrews Eden course in the
RSG-USG
Internet Golf Match of the Century!!

-- Thor

Date: 30 Aug 2006 00:12:29
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Thor wrote:
> Okay, I know you are in Europe somewhere.... but Match Play Madness has
> been
> played overseas... in Scotland. At St. Andrews Eden course in the
> RSG-USG
> Internet Golf Match of the Century!!
You never know! Anyway, I found on google some old thread (from 2003)
where you explained the concept in detail. I had wondered about stymies
and you explained the exception. Actually I=B4ve read somewhere that in
the beginning stymies were not removed. I find this concept hilarious
and charming at the same time and I=B4m going to try it as soon as
possible. A great "invention", Thor! F

Date: 28 Aug 2006 17:22:49
From: Thor
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

annika1980 wrote:

> between them. I doubt that'll ever happen, but who knows? RSG-OHIO is
> just around the corner.

Coming?

-- Thor.

Date: 28 Aug 2006 13:52:32
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

The_Professor wrote:
> I just ignore these characters. They have no real desire to actually do
> anything anyways. Dalecki figures he is as good or better than Ken
> Pitts. Ken doesn't play that much anymore, and he would probably have a
> tough time playing to a 7. I am a total hacker. Someone like Knight has
> to be a better golfer than me; but there would be no point to me and
> Ken challenging them to a match for say 50 bucks each per hole, because
> they wouldn't have any interest in playing. They'd just use such a
> challenge as more fodder for trolling. Anyone really interested would
> just take the challenge and play. I've made and lost many such
> challenges in my life, and I know the difference between blowhards and
> the real thing.

Since I've played with all of the characters involved, as well as
having verbal online spats with all of them, I'll throw in my two cents
worth.

I remember when Frosty challenged Da Ringer to a match. I don't believe
they had ever met in person and I figured Frostback had little chance
against the long-hitting, sweet swinging, Ringer, but I give him props
for showing up. Perhaps he was counting on Ringer not showing, but
Ringer drove the three hours from Augusta to Fields Ferry in GA to
play. I was paired with them and I recall them calling the bet off
after the second hole, perhaps putting their new friendship ahead of
any past online squabbling. As far as I know, they remain friends to
this day.

As far as ability, I've played with Ken enough times to know what he
can do. Dalecki was in the group with us (and R&B and David Hayes) when
Ken shot that 71 at RSG-ATL. At that time, Dalecki wouldn't have posed
much of a threat to any of us in that fivesome. However, Mike played
at RSG-OHIO last year and had some rounds in the mid-70's, IIRC. I
wasn't paired with him and so can't comment on his game beyond that,
but the point is that he has obviously improved. If we were to play
tomorrow, I'm sure he'd beat my ass since I haven't been playing.
(Gimme a week to practice and things might be different.) If Ken
hasn't been playing much either, then I would expect a good match
between them. I doubt that'll ever happen, but who knows? RSG-OHIO is
just around the corner. Put up or shut up.

Frostback calls himself a "total hacker." Who am I to argue with a
professor?
But I still think he's a nice guy.

Date: 28 Aug 2006 16:03:14
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On 28 Aug 2006 13:52:32 -0700, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:

<clip >
>Frostback calls himself a "total hacker." Who am I to argue with a
>professor?
>But I still think he's a nice guy.

Of all people I would think that you'd take issue with someone making
such bragging statements and then not backing them up when confronted.
You never let crap like that go by. If he's a "total hacker" he
shouldn't say that he can " beat a phoney like the person in
question"regarding Dalecki. No way I would make such assinine
statements. If I did, and was challenged, I'd be smart enough to
back down....quickly

Hell, I know that I can't play with you, Dalecki, Ken, or Tex...plus
probably 75% of RSG, and damned sure wouldn't challenge any of you.

I don't think he's a nice guy, but you probably figured that out.
___,
\o

Date: 29 Aug 2006 18:26:54
From: Thor
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Fairway wrote:
> Thor wrote:
> > > I hope he used the free drop - instead of getting wet! F
> >
> > Drop????
> >
> > This was Match Play Madness(TM)... There are no drops!
>
> But.... the ball is in casual water! Did you have some special rules?
> Just curious, since this has happened a few times to me and my
> partners. F

Only ONE RULE. You need to follow the link:
http://rsgohio.com/mpm.txt

-- Thor

Date: 29 Aug 2006 16:53:09
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Tex wrote:
> No thugs allowed....in fact, you can't move anything...a rake in
> bunker, stays...a cart parked next to the green, stays...either you hit
> the shot or pick up. If you opponent can hole out, you lose the hole.
> If your opponent can't hole out, the halve is halved.
>
> Simple. Fun. Quick!

Dammit, this sounds better and better! I=B4m dead tired of all those
free drops and exceptions. Play the course as it is. Lucky or not so
lucky, it=B4s our own fucking business and nobody fucking cares. This is
for real! I=B4m sure to introduce this brilliant format in my goup
soonest. Many thanks, F.

Date: 29 Aug 2006 21:11:53
From: David Sneddon
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Fairway wrote:
> Tex wrote:
>
>>No thugs allowed....in fact, you can't move anything...a rake in
>>bunker, stays...a cart parked next to the green, stays...either you hit
>>the shot or pick up. If you opponent can hole out, you lose the hole.
>>If your opponent can't hole out, the halve is halved.
>>
>>Simple. Fun. Quick!
>
>
> Dammit, this sounds better and better! I�m dead tired of all those
> free drops and exceptions. Play the course as it is. Lucky or not so
> lucky, it�s our own fucking business and nobody fucking cares. This is
> for real! I�m sure to introduce this brilliant format in my goup
> soonest. Many thanks, F.

MPM has already crossed the Atlantic and played at the Home of Golf:

http://www.standrews.org.uk/news/press/pr2004/internet_match.html

David

Date: 29 Aug 2006 15:43:32
From: Tex
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Fairway wrote:
> David Sneddon wrote:
> > The Rules for Match Play Madness:
> >
> > 1.There are no Rules
> > 2. See Rule 1
> >
> > You play the ball as it lies, where you find it.
>
> Charming. Perhaps this is golf as it was meant to be. Among other
> things - you can=B4t hire some thugs to move a boulder and you must play
> your ball from the top of the clubhouse.

No thugs allowed....in fact, you can't move anything...a rake in
bunker, stays...a cart parked next to the green, stays...either you hit
the shot or pick up. If you opponent can hole out, you lose the hole.
If your opponent can't hole out, the halve is halved.

Simple. Fun. Quick!

Tex

Date: 29 Aug 2006 15:41:20
From: Tex
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

annika1980 wrote:
> At least both he and Tex were quick to warn me before I marked my ball
> on the first green. That's another no-no.

Rookies always get one free warning :)

Next time you aren't a rookie!

Tex

Date: 29 Aug 2006 14:46:19
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

David Sneddon wrote:
> The Rules for Match Play Madness:
>
> 1.There are no Rules
> 2. See Rule 1
>
> You play the ball as it lies, where you find it.

Charming. Perhaps this is golf as it was meant to be. Among other
things - you can=B4t hire some thugs to move a boulder and you must play
your ball from the top of the clubhouse. F

Date: 29 Aug 2006 15:34:20
From: multi
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On 29 Aug 2006 14:46:19 -0700, "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com > wrote:
>you can�t hire some thugs to move a boulder

Right, I'm pretty sure they were in the Russian Mafia.

Date: 29 Aug 2006 14:36:54
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

David Sneddon wrote:
> The Rules for Match Play Madness:
>
> 1.There are no Rules
> 2. See Rule 1
>
> You play the ball as it lies, where you find it.
>
> Quite simple and somewhat elegant, unless you are Pflum in a culvert or
> up to his ass in water, or against the clubhouse wall.

And no moving loose impediments, like say a leaf, which might be a foot
beside your ball! Personally, I don't see how moving a leaf beside
your ball is improving your lie, but you bastards didn't ask me when
you made the rules. Sneddon took particular glee in calling this one
on me last year, even though he was in a different match.
Good egg my ass.

At least both he and Tex were quick to warn me before I marked my ball
on the first green. That's another no-no.

Date: 29 Aug 2006 13:58:04
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Thor wrote:
> > I hope he used the free drop - instead of getting wet! F
>
> Drop????
>
> This was Match Play Madness(TM)... There are no drops!

But.... the ball is in casual water! Did you have some special rules?
Just curious, since this has happened a few times to me and my
partners. F

Date: 29 Aug 2006 17:19:27
From: David Sneddon
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Fairway wrote:
> Thor wrote:
>
>>>I hope he used the free drop - instead of getting wet! F
>>
>>Drop????
>>
>>This was Match Play Madness(TM)... There are no drops!
>
>
> But.... the ball is in casual water! Did you have some special rules?
> Just curious, since this has happened a few times to me and my
> partners. F
>

The Rules for Match Play Madness:

1.There are no Rules
2. See Rule 1

You play the ball as it lies, where you find it.

Quite simple and somewhat elegant, unless you are Pflum in a culvert or
up to his ass in water, or against the clubhouse wall.

David

Date: 30 Aug 2006 08:19:35
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 17:19:27 -0400, David Sneddon <nospam@nospam.net >
wrote:

>Fairway wrote:
>> Thor wrote:
>>
>>>>I hope he used the free drop - instead of getting wet! F
>>>
>>>Drop????
>>>
>>>This was Match Play Madness(TM)... There are no drops!
>>
>>
>> But.... the ball is in casual water! Did you have some special rules?
>> Just curious, since this has happened a few times to me and my
>> partners. F
>>
>
>The Rules for Match Play Madness:
>
>1.There are no Rules
>2. See Rule 1
>
>You play the ball as it lies, where you find it.
>
>Quite simple and somewhat elegant, unless you are Pflum in a culvert or
>up to his ass in water, or against the clubhouse wall.
>
>David

The greatest shot in the history of the gemme, some claim.

http://www.rsgcincinnati.com/files/pflumrsgohio2001.mpeg
--

jvdp
The only way to beat me is to make a hole in one
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 30 Aug 2006 16:30:50
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

John van der Pflum <jpflumjr@ughookugh.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 17:19:27 -0400, David Sneddon <nospam@nospam.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Fairway wrote:
>>> Thor wrote:
>>>
>>>>>I hope he used the free drop - instead of getting wet! F
>>>>
>>>>Drop????
>>>>
>>>>This was Match Play Madness(TM)... There are no drops!
>>>
>>>
>>> But.... the ball is in casual water! Did you have some special rules?
>>> Just curious, since this has happened a few times to me and my
>>> partners. F
>>>
>>
>>The Rules for Match Play Madness:
>>
>>1.There are no Rules
>>2. See Rule 1
>>
>>You play the ball as it lies, where you find it.
>>
>>Quite simple and somewhat elegant, unless you are Pflum in a culvert or
>>up to his ass in water, or against the clubhouse wall.
>>
>>David
>
> The greatest shot in the history of the gemme, some claim.
>
> http://www.rsgcincinnati.com/files/pflumrsgohio2001.mpeg

Why play a shot *out* of the hole?

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 29 Aug 2006 12:58:53
From: Thor
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Fairway wrote:
> Thor wrote:
> > Looks here like you were definitely in his group... others
> > unrecognizable:
> >
> I hope he used the free drop - instead of getting wet! F

Drop????

This was Match Play Madness(TM)... There are no drops!

http://rsgohio.com/mpm.txt

--
-- David "Thor" Collard
-- My It is golf.
-- 11th annual RSG-Ohio Sept 15-17 2006

Date: 29 Aug 2006 12:54:03
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Thor wrote:
> Looks here like you were definitely in his group... others
> unrecognizable:
>
I hope he used the free drop - instead of getting wet! F

Date: 29 Aug 2006 12:39:12
From: Thor
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

John van der Pflum wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:34:52 -0500, Mike Dalecki <mike@dalecki.net>
> wrote:
>
> >John van der Pflum wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:07:08 -0500, Mike Dalecki <mike@dalecki.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>John van der Pflum wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:21:53 -0500, Mike Dalecki <mike@dalecki.net>
> >>>>wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>But it's worth it. :)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Mike
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Not if you have to play with me.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I don't see why not. I whipped your butt last year in MPM; why should
> >>>this year be any different?
> >>
> >>
> >> I didn't play you in MPM, did I? I thought I played Stemmer........
> >
> >All I know is that we played, it was a 9-hole match, and I won something
> >like 5 and 4.
> >
>
> Mike,
>
> I'm 90% certain you were not my opponent in MPM. You may have been in
> my group but my playing against you would have been very uneven.
>
> I'm trying to think back to who I played.............
>
> I still think it was Stemmer where he chunked one into the pond right
> in front of the 9th tee.........

Looks here like you were definitely in his group... others
unrecognizable:

http://rsgohio.netfirms.com/rsgohiopics/nfpicturepro/displayimage.php?album=3&pos=37

--
-- David "Thor" Collard
-- My It is golf.
-- 11th annual RSG-Ohio Sept 15-17 2006

Date: 29 Aug 2006 15:49:58
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On 29 Aug 2006 12:39:12 -0700, "Thor" <thorpub@rsgohio.com > wrote:

>
>John van der Pflum wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:34:52 -0500, Mike Dalecki <mike@dalecki.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >John van der Pflum wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:07:08 -0500, Mike Dalecki <mike@dalecki.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>John van der Pflum wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:21:53 -0500, Mike Dalecki <mike@dalecki.net>
>> >>>>wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>But it's worth it. :)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Mike
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Not if you have to play with me.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>I don't see why not. I whipped your butt last year in MPM; why should
>> >>>this year be any different?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I didn't play you in MPM, did I? I thought I played Stemmer........
>> >
>> >All I know is that we played, it was a 9-hole match, and I won something
>> >like 5 and 4.
>> >
>>
>> Mike,
>>
>> I'm 90% certain you were not my opponent in MPM. You may have been in
>> my group but my playing against you would have been very uneven.
>>
>> I'm trying to think back to who I played.............
>>
>> I still think it was Stemmer where he chunked one into the pond right
>> in front of the 9th tee.........
>
>Looks here like you were definitely in his group... others
>unrecognizable:
>
>http://rsgohio.netfirms.com/rsgohiopics/nfpicturepro/displayimage.php?album=3&pos=37

That's definitely me in the fairway right above Mike's head. I can't
tell who the other person is, though.

--

jvdp
The only way to beat me is to make a hole in one
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 28 Aug 2006 13:25:54
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Fairway wrote:

snippit.....

I just ignore these characters. They have no real desire to actually do
anything anyways. Dalecki figures he is as good or better than Ken
Pitts. Ken doesn't play that much anymore, and he would probably have a
tough time playing to a 7. I am a total hacker. Someone like Knight has
to be a better golfer than me; but there would be no point to me and
Ken challenging them to a match for say 50 bucks each per hole, because
they wouldn't have any interest in playing. They'd just use such a
challenge as more fodder for trolling. Anyone really interested would
just take the challenge and play. I've made and lost many such
challenges in my life, and I know the difference between blowhards and
the real thing.

Date: 28 Aug 2006 15:49:24
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On 28 Aug 2006 13:25:54 -0700, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

>
>Fairway wrote:
>
>snippit.....
>
>I just ignore these characters. They have no real desire to actually do
>anything anyways. Dalecki figures he is as good or better than Ken
>Pitts. Ken doesn't play that much anymore, and he would probably have a
>tough time playing to a 7. I am a total hacker. Someone like Knight has
>to be a better golfer than me; but there would be no point to me and
>Ken challenging them to a match for say 50 bucks each per hole, because
>they wouldn't have any interest in playing. They'd just use such a
>challenge as more fodder for trolling. Anyone really interested would
>just take the challenge and play. I've made and lost many such
>challenges in my life, and I know the difference between blowhards and
>the real thing.

Smoke screen Rob. This has nothing to do with my play, or Ken's.
Your mouth overloaded your ass by saying:

> Any decent golfer, me included could beat a phoney like the person in
>question. I've said similar many times and will say it many times in the future.

Now you've been challenged, and you back down like the craven prick
you are.

Although you've challenged Mike in the past, and you state,
unequivocally, that you can beat him, that you know that's all
your usual blather, that you know you can't win my bet, and are now
just posturing as only a coward can.

You were dormie, now you lose.
___,
\o

Date: 29 Aug 2006 14:02:45
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

>
> I vaguely remember that. But that of course wasn't MPM. :)
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
> RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
> RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/

What I want to know is: Is that your real putting stroke in that
RSG-Wisconsin pic?

Date: 29 Aug 2006 23:04:00
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Big_Fan wrote:
>>I vaguely remember that. But that of course wasn't MPM. :)
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
>>RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
>>RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
>
>
> What I want to know is: Is that your real putting stroke in that
> RSG-Wisconsin pic?
>

Yes it is. I presume this is the picture you were looking at:

http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/23.jpg

A good friend here, who is also my partner in Tuesday league, and a past
club champion, putts similarly. He's a tremendous putter.

I tried his style a couple years ago when I was having trouble with
short putts (this style is wonderful for short putts for me), and when
my back was giving me trouble.

In fact, I'll often get even more behind the ball, and turn my head so
I'm looking more down the line. Because I'm lower to the ball, I find
it easier to get a sense of where the putt should be stroked. It feels
like I'm behind the ball looking down the line, much like it feels when
you're behind the ball reading a putt.

It's not quite sidesaddle, but it's close.

Mike

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Aug 2006 06:51:17
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 23:04:00 -0500, Mike Dalecki <mike@dalecki.net >
wrote:

>Big_Fan wrote:
>>>I vaguely remember that. But that of course wasn't MPM. :)
>>>
>>>Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
>>>RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
>>>RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
>>
>>
>> What I want to know is: Is that your real putting stroke in that
>> RSG-Wisconsin pic?
>>
>
>Yes it is. I presume this is the picture you were looking at:
>
>http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/23.jpg

I had Mike as a guest at my club about three weeks ago. Later, a
couple of friends, who obviously saw us on the course, asked me
"what kind of putting stance is that"???

I told them "one that shot 76 the first time on our course". They
immediately were on the practice putting green trying it out. I don't
know their outcome....but know that both could use some help in
putting. :-)
___,
\o

Date: 29 Aug 2006 22:51:55
From: gary hayenga
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On 2006-08-29 17:02:45 -0400, "Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com > said:

>
>>
>> I vaguely remember that. But that of course wasn't MPM. :)
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
>> RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
>> RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
>
> What I want to know is: Is that your real putting stroke in that
> RSG-Wisconsin pic?

Oh yeah.

Dalecki's putting stance looks even more bizarre in person, but he
makes it work pretty damn well.

gary hayenga

Date: 28 Aug 2006 12:08:28
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Bobby Knight wrote:
> >How sweet to see the sick, old cronies stick together. F
>
> How revealing to see someone with no idea what he's talking about
> enter a thread. Tex isn't old, and I'm not sick. Rob is an
> inveterate liar, as you are an inveterate boob.

Of course you are sick and you will go to any length to please your
disgusting old cronies. You would suck the dick of a dead dog if they
told you to do so. Actually I disagree with Bow Tie; Tiger=B4s shot was
a very brave one. But Bow Tie is being harrassed because of an opinion
he is perfectly entitled to have. And, yes, it is creepy to see how
some posters are using this thread to slander the Golden Bear. He has
visited my country frequently and given numerous free lessons to
amateurs, there among people I know. Jack is a great and generous man -
larger than life, indeed. F

Date: 28 Aug 2006 14:29:35
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On 28 Aug 2006 12:08:28 -0700, "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com > wrote:

>
>Bobby Knight wrote:
>> >How sweet to see the sick, old cronies stick together. F
>>
>> How revealing to see someone with no idea what he's talking about
>> enter a thread. Tex isn't old, and I'm not sick. Rob is an
>> inveterate liar, as you are an inveterate boob.
>
>Of course you are sick and you will go to any length to please your
>disgusting old cronies.

You fail to realize, because you're a fucking idiot, that I initiated
the response to Frostback, and only one person has responded to it,
and he certainly isn't a crony.

Since your first post to RSG was around the end of June 2006, and
this BS from Rob Hamilton goes back about 10 years, until you have a
grasp on the realities, you'll be making a fool of yourself by
entering into this thread.....but then that's so easy for you.

Stick to alt.religion.shamanism, which you frequent. You just might
know something about that.
___,
\o

Date: 28 Aug 2006 12:15:35
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

"Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1156792108.506006.327230@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...

Bobby Knight wrote:
> >How sweet to see the sick, old cronies stick together. F
>
> How revealing to see someone with no idea what he's talking about
> enter a thread. Tex isn't old, and I'm not sick. Rob is an
> inveterate liar, as you are an inveterate boob.

Of course you are sick and you will go to any length to please your
disgusting old cronies. You would suck the dick of a dead dog if they
told you to do so. Actually I disagree with Bow Tie; Tiger�s shot was
a very brave one. But Bow Tie is being harrassed because of an opinion
he is perfectly entitled to have. And, yes, it is creepy to see how
some posters are using this thread to slander the Golden Bear. He has
visited my country frequently and given numerous free lessons to
amateurs, there among people I know. Jack is a great and generous man -
larger than life, indeed. F

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

He was paid, or else he never would have gone.
If he ever did anything remotely generous, he knew how to call a news
conference for self promotion.
Just last week he said if he knew how serious a guy like Tiger was going to
be at winning Majors, he would have taken them more seriously when he was
younger.
Yeah, right.

Date: 29 Aug 2006 09:24:03
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Thor wrote:
> > > > between them. I doubt that'll ever happen, but who knows? RSG-OHIO is
> > > > just around the corner.
> > >
> > > Coming?
> > >
> > Nah, just breathin hard.
>
> Get out of your cart too quickly?

Nah, just had to tie my shoe. Give me a minute and I'll be fine.
Yes, it's true, slim ... I've probably gained as much weight as you've
lost.
I went back to visit my old golf course the other day and listened to
everyone bust my chops about how fat I was. One guy said, "Damn, where
have you been eatin, boy?"
I said, "Everywhere!" You think there might be a correlation between
me quitting golf and gaining weight? Oh well, that's what I get for
marrying a good cook. I think I've gained about 50 pounds since I got
married.

So how did you lose your weight? Lots of walking?

BTW, how can RSG-OHIO retain it's Major status when it isn't even
publicized? I had to dig thru a Google search to even find the dates.
No info that I could find about the costs, either. You guys tryin to
keep the riff-raff out or somethin?
My main gripe with RSG-OHIO, however, is that it's played in OHIO.

On a related note, will the rising gas prices affect attendance at RSG
events?
It now costs someone like me or Bill-o more for gas to get there than
it does for lodging.

Date: 29 Aug 2006 12:21:53
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

annika1980 wrote:
> Thor wrote:
>
>>>>>between them. I doubt that'll ever happen, but who knows? RSG-OHIO is
>>>>>just around the corner.
>>>>
>>>>Coming?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Nah, just breathin hard.
>>
>>Get out of your cart too quickly?
>
>
> Nah, just had to tie my shoe. Give me a minute and I'll be fine.
> Yes, it's true, slim ... I've probably gained as much weight as you've
> lost.
> I went back to visit my old golf course the other day and listened to
> everyone bust my chops about how fat I was. One guy said, "Damn, where
> have you been eatin, boy?"
> I said, "Everywhere!" You think there might be a correlation between
> me quitting golf and gaining weight? Oh well, that's what I get for
> marrying a good cook. I think I've gained about 50 pounds since I got
> married.
>
> So how did you lose your weight? Lots of walking?
>
> BTW, how can RSG-OHIO retain it's Major status when it isn't even
> publicized? I had to dig thru a Google search to even find the dates.
> No info that I could find about the costs, either. You guys tryin to
> keep the riff-raff out or somethin?

You have to admit, it nearly worked!

> My main gripe with RSG-OHIO, however, is that it's played in OHIO.
>
> On a related note, will the rising gas prices affect attendance at RSG
> events?
> It now costs someone like me or Bill-o more for gas to get there than
> it does for lodging.

It's pretty much a $600 weekend no matter how you cut it. Mine's a bit
less, but I used miles for a free plane ride. Still, I have to drive to
Madison for the flight (70 miles), pay for parking for 4 days, pay for a
rental car in Ohio, etc. etc. etc.

But it's worth it. :)

Mike

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Aug 2006 14:00:28
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:21:53 -0500, Mike Dalecki <mike@dalecki.net >
wrote:

>
>But it's worth it. :)
>
>Mike

Not if you have to play with me.
--

jvdp
The only way to beat me is to make a hole in one
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 29 Aug 2006 13:07:08
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

John van der Pflum wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:21:53 -0500, Mike Dalecki <mike@dalecki.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>But it's worth it. :)
>>
>>Mike
>
>
> Not if you have to play with me.

I don't see why not. I whipped your butt last year in MPM; why should
this year be any different?

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Aug 2006 14:19:19
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:07:08 -0500, Mike Dalecki <mike@dalecki.net >
wrote:

>John van der Pflum wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:21:53 -0500, Mike Dalecki <mike@dalecki.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>But it's worth it. :)
>>>
>>>Mike
>>
>>
>> Not if you have to play with me.
>
>
>I don't see why not. I whipped your butt last year in MPM; why should
>this year be any different?

I didn't play you in MPM, did I? I thought I played Stemmer........

I know you and I played in a match. It was me/Plowinske vs.
you/Bill-O and we beat you guys pretty bad. Bill-O played like crap
and you basically carried the whole team.
--

jvdp
The only way to beat me is to make a hole in one
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 29 Aug 2006 13:34:52
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

John van der Pflum wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:07:08 -0500, Mike Dalecki <mike@dalecki.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>John van der Pflum wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:21:53 -0500, Mike Dalecki <mike@dalecki.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>But it's worth it. :)
>>>>
>>>>Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>Not if you have to play with me.
>>
>>
>>I don't see why not. I whipped your butt last year in MPM; why should
>>this year be any different?
>
>
> I didn't play you in MPM, did I? I thought I played Stemmer........

All I know is that we played, it was a 9-hole match, and I won something
like 5 and 4.

>
> I know you and I played in a match. It was me/Plowinske vs.
> you/Bill-O and we beat you guys pretty bad. Bill-O played like crap
> and you basically carried the whole team.

I vaguely remember that. But that of course wasn't MPM. :)

Mike

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Aug 2006 15:02:50
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:34:52 -0500, Mike Dalecki <mike@dalecki.net >
wrote:

>John van der Pflum wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:07:08 -0500, Mike Dalecki <mike@dalecki.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>John van der Pflum wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:21:53 -0500, Mike Dalecki <mike@dalecki.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>But it's worth it. :)
>>>>>
>>>>>Mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not if you have to play with me.
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't see why not. I whipped your butt last year in MPM; why should
>>>this year be any different?
>>
>>
>> I didn't play you in MPM, did I? I thought I played Stemmer........
>
>All I know is that we played, it was a 9-hole match, and I won something
>like 5 and 4.
>

Mike,

I'm 90% certain you were not my opponent in MPM. You may have been in
my group but my playing against you would have been very uneven.

I'm trying to think back to who I played.............

I still think it was Stemmer where he chunked one into the pond right
in front of the 9th tee.........
--

jvdp
The only way to beat me is to make a hole in one
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 29 Aug 2006 20:48:57
From: Steve S
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

"John van der Pflum" <jpflumjr@ughookugh.com > wrote in message
news:qk39f2p8lkh3nma1bk6v94cn5ebfc1hhhn@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:34:52 -0500, Mike Dalecki <mike@dalecki.net>
> wrote:
>
>>John van der Pflum wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:07:08 -0500, Mike Dalecki <mike@dalecki.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>John van der Pflum wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:21:53 -0500, Mike Dalecki <mike@dalecki.net>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>But it's worth it. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Mike
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Not if you have to play with me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I don't see why not. I whipped your butt last year in MPM; why should
>>>>this year be any different?
>>>
>>>
>>> I didn't play you in MPM, did I? I thought I played Stemmer........
>>
>>All I know is that we played, it was a 9-hole match, and I won something
>>like 5 and 4.
>>
>
> Mike,
>
> I'm 90% certain you were not my opponent in MPM. You may have been in
> my group but my playing against you would have been very uneven.
>
> I'm trying to think back to who I played.............
>
> I still think it was Stemmer where he chunked one into the pond right
> in front of the 9th tee.........
> --
>
> jvdp
> The only way to beat me is to make a hole in one
> http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Mike was in the group but I played John who still can't beat me. It's
gotten so bad he's intimated that he won't even play me this year in MPM
breaking a 3 year tradition.

Date: 29 Aug 2006 21:02:14
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:48:57 -0400, "Steve S"
<none@fughettaboutit.com > wrote:

>"John van der Pflum" <jpflumjr@ughookugh.com> wrote in message
>news:qk39f2p8lkh3nma1bk6v94cn5ebfc1hhhn@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:34:52 -0500, Mike Dalecki <mike@dalecki.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>John van der Pflum wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:07:08 -0500, Mike Dalecki <mike@dalecki.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>John van der Pflum wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:21:53 -0500, Mike Dalecki <mike@dalecki.net>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But it's worth it. :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not if you have to play with me.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't see why not. I whipped your butt last year in MPM; why should
>>>>>this year be any different?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I didn't play you in MPM, did I? I thought I played Stemmer........
>>>
>>>All I know is that we played, it was a 9-hole match, and I won something
>>>like 5 and 4.
>>>
>>
>> Mike,
>>
>> I'm 90% certain you were not my opponent in MPM. You may have been in
>> my group but my playing against you would have been very uneven.
>>
>> I'm trying to think back to who I played.............
>>
>> I still think it was Stemmer where he chunked one into the pond right
>> in front of the 9th tee.........
>> --
>>
>> jvdp
>> The only way to beat me is to make a hole in one
>> http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
>
>Mike was in the group but I played John who still can't beat me. It's
>gotten so bad he's intimated that he won't even play me this year in MPM
>breaking a 3 year tradition.
>
>

kicked your butt 5&4 and 2&1 in Jamaica. I need some new meat.

Why anyone would smile like this after the stomping you took, I'll
never know.

http://www.pbase.com/jpflumjr/image/48138558

Date: 30 Aug 2006 08:12:46
From: Steve S
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

"John van der Pflum" <jpflumjr@ughookugh.com > wrote in message
news:poo9f2dceedoeqd0cp62kv1b5is48sff4o@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:48:57 -0400, "Steve S"
> <none@fughettaboutit.com> wrote:
>
>>"John van der Pflum" <jpflumjr@ughookugh.com> wrote in message
>>news:qk39f2p8lkh3nma1bk6v94cn5ebfc1hhhn@4ax.com...

>>Mike was in the group but I played John who still can't beat me. It's
>>gotten so bad he's intimated that he won't even play me this year in MPM
>>breaking a 3 year tradition.
>>
>>
>
> kicked your butt 5&4 and 2&1 in Jamaica. I need some new meat.
>
> Why anyone would smile like this after the stomping you took, I'll
> never know.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/jpflumjr/image/48138558

Because it's so much fun toying with you. If I didn't let you win once in a
while you'd take your ball and go home.

Date: 30 Aug 2006 08:21:42
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 08:12:46 -0400, "Steve S"
<none@fughettaboutit.com > wrote:

>"John van der Pflum" <jpflumjr@ughookugh.com> wrote in message
>news:poo9f2dceedoeqd0cp62kv1b5is48sff4o@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:48:57 -0400, "Steve S"
>> <none@fughettaboutit.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"John van der Pflum" <jpflumjr@ughookugh.com> wrote in message
>>>news:qk39f2p8lkh3nma1bk6v94cn5ebfc1hhhn@4ax.com...
>
>>>Mike was in the group but I played John who still can't beat me. It's
>>>gotten so bad he's intimated that he won't even play me this year in MPM
>>>breaking a 3 year tradition.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> kicked your butt 5&4 and 2&1 in Jamaica. I need some new meat.
>>
>> Why anyone would smile like this after the stomping you took, I'll
>> never know.
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/jpflumjr/image/48138558
>
>Because it's so much fun toying with you. If I didn't let you win once in a
>while you'd take your ball and go home.
>

No, it was the Red Stripe we had waiting for us when we got back to
the resort. :-) And those awesome grilled cheese sandwiches.
--

jvdp
The only way to beat me is to make a hole in one
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 30 Aug 2006 05:23:13
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On 29-Aug-2006, Mike Dalecki <mike@dalecki.net > wrote:

> > I know you and I played in a match. It was me/Plowinske vs.
> > you/Bill-O and we beat you guys pretty bad. Bill-O played like crap
> > and you basically carried the whole team.
>
> I vaguely remember that. But that of course wasn't MPM. :)

I only remember my play on Sunday, 42-40, @ Mill Creek, and as far as that
match goes I do remember Sir Plowe severely sculling one cause he was so
worried about getting his clothes muddy! :-P

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 30 Aug 2006 14:51:20
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

John van der Pflum wrote:
>
> Totally legal!
>
> Use them -- there is only one rule. Put like you are playing pool.
> Stand astride your line. Take practice swings in a hazard (I do that
> all the time just to freak people out.)

The best part about MPM for me last year was bringing out the old
Clanger.
"Ask not for whom the Clanger clangs, Sir Plow, it clangs for thee."

Also, there is no rule against talkin smack, either.
On the first tee last year I asked Sir Plow, "Have you ever played the
8th hole at this course?"
He said, "Yeah, many times."
I said, "Good, cause you ain't playin it today."

Date: 30 Aug 2006 13:13:05
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

John van der Pflum wrote:
> On 30 Aug 2006 11:02:22 -0700, "oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com"
> <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
[snip]
> >> >The Rules for Match Play Madness:
> >> >
> >> >1.There are no Rules
> >> >2. See Rule 1
> >> >
> >> >You play the ball as it lies, where you find it.
> >> >
>[snip]
> > Dat don't look like no "legal" stroke. Are "hockey stick"
> >shots allowed? i.e "brushing" the ball instead of striking it?
> >No concerns about "conforming" clubs or balls? I gots a few
> >"special" clubs I might use if it was allowed.
>
> Totally legal!
>
> Use them -- there is only one rule. Put like you are playing pool.
> Stand astride your line. Take practice swings in a hazard (I do that
> all the time just to freak people out.)

Houwz aboutz the definition of the teeing ground? I mean, no rules
and all. I'd imagine someone might get a bit upset if I tee'd it up
a bit forward of the markers don't ya know. What is the
relationship to striking equipment? I mean if I lay the flag down
when putting, is there a penalty if I hit it? Especially
if I say lay it down such that it just happens to say run close to my
line of putt and runs by the hole? Think "guard rail".

Date: 30 Aug 2006 18:33:10
From: gary hayenga
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On 2006-08-30 16:13:05 -0400, "oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com"
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com > said:

>
> John van der Pflum wrote:
>> On 30 Aug 2006 11:02:22 -0700, "oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com"
>> <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>>>>> The Rules for Match Play Madness:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.There are no Rules
>>>>> 2. See Rule 1
>>>>>
>>>>> You play the ball as it lies, where you find it.
>>>>>
>> [snip]
>>> Dat don't look like no "legal" stroke. Are "hockey stick"
>>> shots allowed? i.e "brushing" the ball instead of striking it?
>>> No concerns about "conforming" clubs or balls? I gots a few
>>> "special" clubs I might use if it was allowed.
>>
>> Totally legal!
>>
>> Use them -- there is only one rule. Put like you are playing pool.
>> Stand astride your line. Take practice swings in a hazard (I do that
>> all the time just to freak people out.)
>
>
> Houwz aboutz the definition of the teeing ground? I mean, no rules
> and all. I'd imagine someone might get a bit upset if I tee'd it up
> a bit forward of the markers don't ya know. What is the
> relationship to striking equipment? I mean if I lay the flag down
> when putting, is there a penalty if I hit it? Especially
> if I say lay it down such that it just happens to say run close to my
> line of putt and runs by the hole? Think "guard rail".

Hmmm.

Now that I think about it, if you can't move bunker rakes, why can you
remove the pin from the hole?

It would seem that taking the flagstick out is not playing the course
as you find it.

Thor? Can I get a ruling on this?

gary hayenga

Date: 30 Aug 2006 18:26:32
From: gary hayenga
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On 2006-08-30 16:13:05 -0400, "oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com"
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com > said:

>
> John van der Pflum wrote:
>> On 30 Aug 2006 11:02:22 -0700, "oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com"
>> <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>>>>> The Rules for Match Play Madness:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.There are no Rules
>>>>> 2. See Rule 1
>>>>>
>>>>> You play the ball as it lies, where you find it.
>>>>>
>> [snip]
>>> Dat don't look like no "legal" stroke. Are "hockey stick"
>>> shots allowed? i.e "brushing" the ball instead of striking it?
>>> No concerns about "conforming" clubs or balls? I gots a few
>>> "special" clubs I might use if it was allowed.
>>
>> Totally legal!
>>
>> Use them -- there is only one rule. Put like you are playing pool.
>> Stand astride your line. Take practice swings in a hazard (I do that
>> all the time just to freak people out.)
>
>
> Houwz aboutz the definition of the teeing ground? I mean, no rules
> and all. I'd imagine someone might get a bit upset if I tee'd it up
> a bit forward of the markers don't ya know. What is the
> relationship to striking equipment? I mean if I lay the flag down
> when putting, is there a penalty if I hit it? Especially
> if I say lay it down such that it just happens to say run close to my
> line of putt and runs by the hole? Think "guard rail".

No rule against it. Perfectly legal.

No rule against your opponent moving it either :)

gary hayenga

Date: 30 Aug 2006 15:44:01
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:
> John van der Pflum wrote:
>
>>On 30 Aug 2006 11:02:22 -0700, "oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com"
>><oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>>>The Rules for Match Play Madness:
>>>>>
>>>>>1.There are no Rules
>>>>>2. See Rule 1
>>>>>
>>>>>You play the ball as it lies, where you find it.
>>>>>
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>> Dat don't look like no "legal" stroke. Are "hockey stick"
>>>shots allowed? i.e "brushing" the ball instead of striking it?
>>>No concerns about "conforming" clubs or balls? I gots a few
>>>"special" clubs I might use if it was allowed.
>>
>>Totally legal!
>>
>>Use them -- there is only one rule. Put like you are playing pool.
>>Stand astride your line. Take practice swings in a hazard (I do that
>>all the time just to freak people out.)
>
>
>
> Houwz aboutz the definition of the teeing ground? I mean, no rules
> and all. I'd imagine someone might get a bit upset if I tee'd it up
> a bit forward of the markers don't ya know. What is the
> relationship to striking equipment? I mean if I lay the flag down
> when putting, is there a penalty if I hit it? Especially
> if I say lay it down such that it just happens to say run close to my
> line of putt and runs by the hole? Think "guard rail".
>

Know what? I tried that last year. When the assembled golfers
objected, I pointed out the fact that there was only one rule, and
teeing off from behind the markers was not it.

Lots of people were hooting, so I teed it up behind the markers, and
promptly hit my drive into a flooded bunker.

I played that one as it lay. :)

Mike

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Aug 2006 07:44:02
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Thor wrote:
> The idea is to play by the spirit of the gemme. It works - but only if
> those
> participating are interested in doing so. It is an experiment. It is
> also
> the most fun playing golf I have ever had.

This thread began with hellish hatred from the murky dungeons of the
human soul and you have turned it into pure gold. David, you are the
man. F

Date: 31 Aug 2006 06:12:51
From: Thor
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:
> Houwz aboutz the definition of the teeing ground? I mean, no rules
> and all. I'd imagine someone might get a bit upset if I tee'd it up
> a bit forward of the markers don't ya know. What is the
> relationship to striking equipment? I mean if I lay the flag down
> when putting, is there a penalty if I hit it? Especially
> if I say lay it down such that it just happens to say run close to my
> line of putt and runs by the hole? Think "guard rail".

The idea is to play by the spirit of the gemme. It works - but only if
those
participating are interested in doing so. It is an experiment. It is
also
the most fun playing golf I have ever had.

--
-- 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: 30 Aug 2006 12:12:51
From: Tex
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Thor wrote:
> oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:
>
> > Dat don't look like no "legal" stroke. Are "hockey stick"
> > shots allowed? i.e "brushing" the ball instead of striking it?
> > No concerns about "conforming" clubs or balls? I gots a few
> > "special" clubs I might use if it was allowed.
>
> I do think it actually was a legal stroke. There is a small backswing
> and the ball is struck. In any case, it was certainly his best effort
> to make a good strike.
>
> There are no rules requiring conforming clubs.

The other non-rule I like is "the entire world is in
bounds"...afterall, there are no rules defining OB :)

Tex

Date: 31 Aug 2006 15:41:28
From: Steve S
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1156965171.645684.14870@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> There are no rules requiring conforming clubs.
>
> The other non-rule I like is "the entire world is in
> bounds"...afterall, there are no rules defining OB :)
>
> Tex
>

And don't forget, practice swings in the bunkers are allowed.

Date: 30 Aug 2006 11:51:54
From: Thor
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:

> Dat don't look like no "legal" stroke. Are "hockey stick"
> shots allowed? i.e "brushing" the ball instead of striking it?
> No concerns about "conforming" clubs or balls? I gots a few
> "special" clubs I might use if it was allowed.

I do think it actually was a legal stroke. There is a small backswing
and the ball is struck. In any case, it was certainly his best effort
to make a good strike.

There are no rules requiring conforming clubs.

--
-- 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: 30 Aug 2006 11:02:22
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

John van der Pflum wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 17:19:27 -0400, David Sneddon <nospam@nospam.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Fairway wrote:
> >> Thor wrote:
> >>
> >>>>I hope he used the free drop - instead of getting wet! F
> >>>
> >>>Drop????
> >>>
> >>>This was Match Play Madness(TM)... There are no drops!
> >>
> >>
> >> But.... the ball is in casual water! Did you have some special rules?
> >> Just curious, since this has happened a few times to me and my
> >> partners. F
> >>
> >
> >The Rules for Match Play Madness:
> >
> >1.There are no Rules
> >2. See Rule 1
> >
> >You play the ball as it lies, where you find it.
> >
> >Quite simple and somewhat elegant, unless you are Pflum in a culvert or
> >up to his ass in water, or against the clubhouse wall.
> >
> >David
>
> The greatest shot in the history of the gemme, some claim.
>
> http://www.rsgcincinnati.com/files/pflumrsgohio2001.mpeg

Um...... I know, I know, there are no rules. But......

Dat don't look like no "legal" stroke. Are "hockey stick"
shots allowed? i.e "brushing" the ball instead of striking it?
No concerns about "conforming" clubs or balls? I gots a few
"special" clubs I might use if it was allowed.

Date: 30 Aug 2006 14:44:09
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On 30 Aug 2006 11:02:22 -0700, "oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com"
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com > wrote:

>
>John van der Pflum wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 17:19:27 -0400, David Sneddon <nospam@nospam.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Fairway wrote:
>> >> Thor wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>>I hope he used the free drop - instead of getting wet! F
>> >>>
>> >>>Drop????
>> >>>
>> >>>This was Match Play Madness(TM)... There are no drops!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> But.... the ball is in casual water! Did you have some special rules?
>> >> Just curious, since this has happened a few times to me and my
>> >> partners. F
>> >>
>> >
>> >The Rules for Match Play Madness:
>> >
>> >1.There are no Rules
>> >2. See Rule 1
>> >
>> >You play the ball as it lies, where you find it.
>> >
>> >Quite simple and somewhat elegant, unless you are Pflum in a culvert or
>> >up to his ass in water, or against the clubhouse wall.
>> >
>> >David
>>
>> The greatest shot in the history of the gemme, some claim.
>>
>> http://www.rsgcincinnati.com/files/pflumrsgohio2001.mpeg
>
> Um...... I know, I know, there are no rules. But......
>
> Dat don't look like no "legal" stroke. Are "hockey stick"
>shots allowed? i.e "brushing" the ball instead of striking it?
>No concerns about "conforming" clubs or balls? I gots a few
>"special" clubs I might use if it was allowed.

Totally legal!

Use them -- there is only one rule. Put like you are playing pool.
Stand astride your line. Take practice swings in a hazard (I do that
all the time just to freak people out.)
--

jvdp
The only way to beat me is to make a hole in one
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 31 Aug 2006 13:06:47
From: Tex
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Steve S wrote:
> "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1156965171.645684.14870@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> > There are no rules requiring conforming clubs.
> >
> > The other non-rule I like is "the entire world is in
> > bounds"...afterall, there are no rules defining OB :)
> >
> > Tex
> >
>
> And don't forget, practice swings in the bunkers are allowed.

What's a bunker? <g >

Tex

Date: 29 Aug 2006 12:36:49
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse? (RSG OHIO Annika)

On 29 Aug 2006 09:24:03 -0700, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:

Geez, Annika. You whine like an old woman. See RSG 33-7/103 Player
Whines Incessantly about Handicap Strokes. It might apply to you.
:-)

> RSG-OHIO 2006 is fast approaching!!! September 15-17, 2006 is the date.
> Come and meet some rsg-ers, ex-rsg-ers, and lurkers, and even vie for
> the chance to have your name engraved on the fabled CoffeeMaker
> Trophy (http://ttsoft.com/thor/rsgohio/pics/champs.html) and the
> right to wear the RSG-OHIO Maroon Champion's Jacket!! We also have
> the elegant Quaich for the Premier Golfer Of The Year (low gross).
>
> This is the 11th annual RSG-OHIO. Come along it will be a blast!!!
> Website: http://rsgohio.com
>
> It is time to sign up and confirm which rounds you will be playing!
>
> *******************************************************************
> EVERYBODY PLEASE RESPOND even if you already have confirmed that
> you are coming!! Send response to entries2006@rsgohio.com
> *******************************************************************
>
> All are welcome. If you don't have an official handicap we will
> work something out... send me mail. Or, you don't have to compete
> in the tournament - there is still golf, contests like closest to the
> pin, long drive, etc (a prize on every hole!). There is even a prize
> for the best tale of the evening at Grub, Grog, and Gossip (TM).
>
> Prize donations are always appreciated!!
>
> Please fill out the following and return to
> entries2006@rsgohio.com. See below for information on
> the courses and prices.
>
> ALL fields are required.
>
> Name:
> Email:
> Handicap: (or indicate not interested in competing)
> Handicap source: (USGA, league, what?)
> Fri AM: (indicate walk/ride)
> Fri PM: (indicate walk/ride)
> Fri Dinner: yes/no
> Sat AM: (indicate walk/ride)
> Sat PM: (indicate walk/ride)
> Sat Dinner: yes/no
> Sun AM: (indicate walk/ride)
> Indicate if this is exactly your seventh year at RSG-Ohio (yes/no):
>
> If you are not sure walk/ride, just sign up for walking and
> you can probably add a cart at the course...
>
> *** IMPORTANT ***
> I also need each of you to send a check ASAP made out to David Collard.
> I will be cashing the checks, and the golf will be paid for
> when you arrive. I also have set up a paypal account, so you
> can paypal me at payment@rsgohio.com, BUT please add 3 percent!!
>
> Fri AM (Blacklick Woods) $ 23/walk $35/ride
> Fri PM (Links @ Groveport) $ 32/walk $32/ride
> Sat AM (Players Club) $ 36/walk $49/ride
> Sat PM (Foxfire) $ 13/walk $13/ride
> Sun AM (Phoenix) $ 27/walk $39/ride
> --------------------------------------------
> Everything (walking): $ 131 [wow, lotta golf for that money!!]
> (riding) : $ 168
>
> Send the checks (made out to David Collard) to:
> Dave Collard
> RSG-Ohio
> 6632 Blue Church Road
> Sunbury, OH 43074

--

jvdp
The only way to beat me is to make a hole in one
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 30 Aug 2006 05:17:48
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On 29-Aug-2006, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:

> Nah, just had to tie my shoe. Give me a minute and I'll be fine.
> Yes, it's true, slim ... I've probably gained as much weight as you've
> lost.

Yes, that 1/2 Pflum had to go somewhere, as anyone in Physics 101 will tell
you the mass of the universe is constant! :-)

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 29 Aug 2006 15:55:28
From: David Sneddon
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

annika1980 wrote:

> On a related note, will the rising gas prices affect attendance at RSG
> events?
> It now costs someone like me or Bill-o more for gas to get there than
> it does for lodging.

You should have seen it in years when the Cdn dollar was worth 60cents
US. Still worth every penny, no matter the currency.

David

Date: 29 Aug 2006 06:33:20
From: Thor
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

annika1980 wrote:
> Thor wrote:
> > annika1980 wrote:
> >
> > > between them. I doubt that'll ever happen, but who knows? RSG-OHIO is
> > > just around the corner.
> >
> > Coming?
> >
> Nah, just breathin hard.

Get out of your cart too quickly?

--
-- David "Thor" Collard
-- My It is golf.
-- 11th annual RSG-Ohio Sept 15-17 2006

Date: 29 Aug 2006 01:21:03
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

annika1980 wrote:
> Thor wrote:
> > annika1980 wrote:
> >
> > > between them. I doubt that'll ever happen, but who knows? RSG-OHIO is
> > > just around the corner.
> >
> >
> > Coming?
> >
>
> Nah, just breathin hard.

I need a brain-scrubber.

Date: 30 Aug 2006 00:20:36
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

bill-o wrote:
> Yes, that 1/2 Pflum had to go somewhere, as anyone in Physics 101 will tell
> you the mass of the universe is constant! :-)

Sorry to be a bit pedantic - but the energy is constant, not the mass!
For instance, the mass of our sun is enormously reduced every second. F

Date: 27 Aug 2006 17:05:40
From:
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Take this thread for instance. Anyone who plays the game (Annika for
instance) knows that Tiger was lucky to escape with bogey from that
poor play. I state the obvious and I get attacked for it.

Why is it vitriol to react to what I see that I don't like. How about
this for instance?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/golf/specials/us_open/2005/06/17/woods.round2.ap/index.html

There is no excuse for this kind of stuf. But, what is the typical
defense? Everyone does it. No, everyone does not do it. I've been going
to these events since back in the 60's and I have never once seen
anything like this in person.

I was not going to bring this up. But, on The Herd on ESPN radio (I
listen on my way to the office most days), John Kincade spent about 10
minutes of the show reading the riot act to Tiger for three instances
of thrown clubs accompanied by profanity during the Thursday round. I
saw him throw a club at least once today. But, why say anything?
Everyone around here thinks throwing clubs and spewing profane
utterances is the way a gentleman is supposed to play. Well not me. Not
ever. And that goes double when we are talking about the most
celebrated player in the history of the game.

Ken

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mike Dalecki wrote:
> kenpittsjr@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I call 'em like I see 'em.
>
> Isn't that odd? So do I!
>
> > I didn't see any temper antics from Tiger at
> > the Open Championship and his play was brilliant.
>
> Yes it was. Temper tantrums don't, however, define what is brilliant.
>
> > How about giving me a break instead of farming me out to be a Klan
> > member?
>
> Are you? Your incessant attempts to denigrate Tiger--despite the *very*
> occasional less critical post--makes it hard to presume you are anything
> other than full of vitriol toward him.
>
> > I would like to be able to participate in this, but constantly
> > being attacked makes it difficult.
>
> Now you sound like LLLarry. Let me see if I have this right: You want
> to participate, but on your own terms, which apparently means you get to
> say what you want without anyone pointing out what they perceive to be
> inconsistencies in your rhetoric.
>
> When you're a bit more objective, you might find a lot of people cutting
> you some slack. But in the meantime, wouldn't it be prudent to wonder
> what I--and a lot of other people--are cueing in on when they have these
> exchanges with you?
>
> Or are you going to keep saying that the rest of the world is out of
> step with the drummer you hear?
>
> Mike
> <the hack>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
> RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
> RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Aug 2006 04:51:09
From: rich hammett
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

In rec.sport.football.college Tonawanda Kardex <tonawandakardex@gmail.com > sanoi, hitaasti kuin h�m�h�kki:

> Tonawanda Kardex wrote:
>> sjaros3@home.com wrote:
>> > .. he's also not a charger. the flip-side of his "12-0 in majors when
>> > leading after the 3rd round" is that he's 0 for 30 or whatever in
>> > majors when he isn't leading after the 3rd round.
>> >
>> > when i first started watching golf in the 70s, 'charging' was a common
>> > term. it was used to describe some great, usually nicklaus but
>> > sometimes a watson or a trevino, who was down some strokes but was
>> > making a big run up the leader board on the last day of the tourney and
>> > claiming victory..
>> >
>> > tiger doesn't seem to do that. he's either in front, or he's not, and
>> > if he's not, he doesn't charge from behind.
>> >
>> > the front-runner thing works when you're clear-cut best and can lead
>> > wire to wire, but an inability to come from behind might hamper him
>> > when he's a little older and not totally dominant.
>>
>> When do we get to talk about Tiger's weak Ryder Cup showings?

> Hate to answer myself, but I love how this one shut everyone up really
> rapidly.

Yeah! Can we talk about Pro Bowl stats, too?

rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ The Bill Clinton of RSFC

Date: 28 Aug 2006 14:31:13
From: rich
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

"rich hammett" <bubbarichau@warmmail.com > wrote in message
news:12f4thtr041vb6f@corp.supernews.com...
> In rec.sport.football.college Tonawanda Kardex <tonawandakardex@gmail.com>
> sanoi, hitaasti kuin h�m�h�kki:
>
>> Tonawanda Kardex wrote:
>>> sjaros3@home.com wrote:
>>> > .. he's also not a charger. the flip-side of his "12-0 in majors when
>>> > leading after the 3rd round" is that he's 0 for 30 or whatever in
>>> > majors when he isn't leading after the 3rd round.
>>> >
>>> > when i first started watching golf in the 70s, 'charging' was a common
>>> > term. it was used to describe some great, usually nicklaus but
>>> > sometimes a watson or a trevino, who was down some strokes but was
>>> > making a big run up the leader board on the last day of the tourney
>>> > and
>>> > claiming victory..
>>> >
>>> > tiger doesn't seem to do that. he's either in front, or he's not, and
>>> > if he's not, he doesn't charge from behind.
>>> >
>>> > the front-runner thing works when you're clear-cut best and can lead
>>> > wire to wire, but an inability to come from behind might hamper him
>>> > when he's a little older and not totally dominant.
>>>
>>> When do we get to talk about Tiger's weak Ryder Cup showings?
>
>> Hate to answer myself, but I love how this one shut everyone up really
>> rapidly.
>
> Yeah! Can we talk about Pro Bowl stats, too?
>
> rich
> --
> -to reply, it's hot not warm
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
> / The Bill Clinton of RSFC

Yeah, his record is 3-1 in the singles. It is when they make him carry some
doofus in the fourball or foursome that he loses.

Rich

Date: 28 Aug 2006 15:28:56
From:
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

In article <1156723540.471300.321310@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >,
kenpittsjr@gmail.com wrote:

> Take this thread for instance. Anyone who plays the game (Annika for
> instance) knows that Tiger was lucky to escape with bogey from that
> poor play. I state the obvious and I get attacked for it.
>
> Why is it vitriol to react to what I see that I don't like. How about
> this for instance?
>
> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/golf/specials/us_open/2005/06/17/woods.r
> ound2.ap/index.html
>
> There is no excuse for this kind of stuf. But, what is the typical
> defense? Everyone does it. No, everyone does not do it. I've been going
> to these events since back in the 60's and I have never once seen
> anything like this in person.
>
> I was not going to bring this up. But, on The Herd on ESPN radio (I
> listen on my way to the office most days), John Kincade spent about 10
> minutes of the show reading the riot act to Tiger for three instances
> of thrown clubs accompanied by profanity during the Thursday round. I
> saw him throw a club at least once today. But, why say anything?
> Everyone around here thinks throwing clubs and spewing profane
> utterances is the way a gentleman is supposed to play. Well not me. Not
> ever. And that goes double when we are talking about the most
> celebrated player in the history of the game.

Then don't post here. Find another, or start another, group where you
can post whatever you want with agreement. Yes, you don't want to be
run out this group, but if you are the minority opionion others will let
you know. They are doing so in this thread and your lack of logic
skills can't seem to distinguish this fact from a personal attack. Have
you ever talked to a counselor about being narcissistic?

B. Martin

Date: 27 Aug 2006 16:51:43
From:
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

How about giving me an even break? As it is, you are acting like Koenig
or multi. I get the feeling from you that nothing I say or do is
worthwhile in any way. **I do not hate Tiger,** Does not liking things
he does or the adulation mean that I hate him? No! I'm the same as a
Klan member because I don't like all the fawning for Tiger? They were
at it again today. They acted like nobody else has a chance. Well what
happened? Tiger bogeyed a par5 and fell into a playoff. If he doesn't
make a super save on the first ploayoff hole, Cink wins. That kind of
drivel is what irritates me. You act like I'm burning crosses in his
front yard....................

Once you get accused of racism, you just cannot defend yourself against
it.It doesn't matter that he is married to a Muslim, it doesn't matter
that he has successfully worked for black managers and business owners.
It doesn't matter that he spent twenty years in a sport that is mostly
played by Chinese and Japanese. He doesn't fawn over Tiger, so he must
be a racist.

Give me some kind of break and I might could recognize that you have
played golf other than what you played with me.

Ken

+++++++++++++++++++++
Mike Dalecki wrote:
> kenpittsjr@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > The time I played with you - all I saw was one over the top move after
> > another. I shot one under - you shot what? 90?
>
> Other than the fact I'm not the same golfer I was when we played *years
> ago*, what does that have to do with anything?
>
> If the only argument you have to counter mine is that you're a better
> golfer than I am, you haven't got much, have you?
>
> > As long as you keep attacking me without ever letting up, you are a
> > hack because that is all I have ever seen from you.
>
> So if I stop "attacking you" (in your words), I'll stop being a hack?
>
> Are you serious?
>
> Mike
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
> RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
> RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Aug 2006 19:39:08
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

kenpittsjr@gmail.com wrote:

> How about giving me an even break?

You'll get an even break from me when I feel your posting behavior
warrants it.

You've been told time and again by how many people on RSG what the issue
is, but you don't hear. Or want to hear. Or whatever.

The great irony in all this is that I would like to hear your views on
him, without it always degenerating into something about Tiger's temper,
or crap like that.

> As it is, you are acting like Koenig
> or multi. I get the feeling from you that nothing I say or do is
> worthwhile in any way.

I don't know--most of what you probably see as worthwhile is something I
see as a few very strained attempts to say something nice about Tiger,
so you can feel justified in attacking him for some other perceived
slight.

You're a better golfer than I am (which doesn't make you a better
person), but are someone from whom I might learn something about golf.
I've always sought out better golfers to play with, it's an integral
part of my improvement over the last five years.

Same with whom I read on RSG. The better golfers might reveal some
other tidbit about the game, a tidbit I'm ready for at this point.

Annika1980 has actually had a fairly profound effect on my game. One
instance was at one of the RSG-Atls where someone asked him about
playing safe on a hole with water on both sides. His answer? "I wasn't
going to win the tournament on that hole, but I surely could have lost
it there." It was kind of the beginning of my becoming really
interested in course management.

The other was at the second RSG-Atl. I was playing w/ him and he pulled
an iron for a second shot on a par 5. I asked why he chose that club,
and he said "look at the lie." He'd caught a divot, and couldn't have
laid a wood on it well enough to reach the green, and he would have
brought trouble into play. So he laid up giving himself a 3-shot chance
at birdie (which he didn't make), but he did make par. And he didn't
make a 7, which I probably would have done in that circumstance, because
I would have hit the 3-wood.

So I learn from better golfers all the time. I watch how they hit
shots, how they course manage, how they hit unusual shots. It's a
goodly part of how I've become a 7-handicap. I play a lot smarter than
I used to.

And I read with a certain greediness what they write about the game on
RSG, for the same reason. Not about the swing--I don't read swing
threads--but about most everything else.

And so, given your prowess in golf relative to mine, I used to look for
similar things in yoru posts.

But when it's simply more of the same--everybody knows you don't like
Tiger's temper displays--then it isn't worth my time to see what else
you have to say.

I don't read much of what you say, Ken, because it's so predictable.

Every once in a while I give you another try to see if things are
better, but as of yet, to me, they aren't.

> **I do not hate Tiger,** Does not liking things
> he does or the adulation mean that I hate him? No!

But surely there must be things he does which you do like, and he's not
responsible for the adulation (except by playing better than anyone else).

The man is the most accomplished golfer of his (and arguably) any other
generation. He does things nobody else does, has a repertoire of shots
nobody else seems to hit, seems to mesmerize everyone else when he's in
contention.

I feel sad for you that you can't enjoy the wonderment many of the rest
of us feel privileged to feel, as we witness the greatest player of this
generation.

> I'm the same as a
> Klan member because I don't like all the fawning for Tiger?

This is the second time you mentioned that Klan stuff, and I'm trying to
figure out where it comes from.

I watched the telecast today, and I think it was over the top. But I
don't let it dominate my life, nor my posting behavior on RSG.

> They were
> at it again today. They acted like nobody else has a chance.

Yes they were. And they did. I thought it was funny, especially as
they had to do an about-face as the round progressed. They got what
they deserved. And I'll bet you 40 cents someone at the network says
something to them about it, because they were inches away from having
big-time egg on their faces.

And I thought it was odd, because all day Tiger looked like he had the
flu. I played a week ago w/ the flu (it didn't set in until about the
3rd hole), and I stunk up the joint. Tiger today looked like I felt a
week ago.

But the only explanation they had for that was coming down off of
winning the PGA, which didn't make sense to me as it would have seemed
more likely to show up Thursday and Friday.

> Well what
> happened? Tiger bogeyed a par5 and fell into a playoff. If he doesn't
> make a super save on the first ploayoff hole, Cink wins. That kind of
> drivel is what irritates me. You act like I'm burning crosses in his
> front yard....................

Now it's burning crosses.

Tiger isn't perfect. Neither was Jack. But the fact that I'm not so
terribly impressed by Jack the man doesn't mean I can't acknowledge his
genius as a golfer. He was the dominant golfer of his generation and se
the standard by which other golfers are measured, including Tiger.

He also seems to spend a lot of time "providing" for his family. I find
that, frankly, pathetic. And I feel sorry for his kids and grandkids,
who will forever be known as Jack Nicklaus' kids and grandkids.

But he lives his life, I live mine. And I enjoy watching someone who is
probably the best athlete of today's generation.

> Once you get accused of racism, you just cannot defend yourself against
> it.It doesn't matter that he is married to a Muslim, it doesn't matter
> that he has successfully worked for black managers and business owners.
> It doesn't matter that he spent twenty years in a sport that is mostly
> played by Chinese and Japanese. He doesn't fawn over Tiger, so he must
> be a racist.

Give me a break. You're judged by your behavior, which in this case is
your posting history vis a vis Tiger.

And you have to admit: People have pointed out to you, repeatedly,
where they take issue with you regarding your posts because they are
repeated ad nauseum:

Temper: People said "Ken, we get it." People pointed out examples of
others who had displays similar to Tiger, but which you elected not to
rant on. They noted that others do it off camera, but b/c Tiger's on
camera so much, he's much more in display. Didn't matter.

Temper: You said Tiger was at fault. Others said the networks could
block it if it were a problem, which they perceive it not to be. You
said many opposed it, but clearly it wasn't bothering the networks,
which would have been bothered by legions of fans complaining. Didn't
matter.

Every time Tiger throws a club, or does something else with less than
perfect decorum, I expect a Pitts post any moment on RSG.

If it's not you, then just who the hell is responsible for that expectation?

>
> Give me some kind of break and I might could recognize that you have
> played golf other than what you played with me.
>
> Ken

Know what, Ken? I don't give a damn whether you recognize it or not.

Mike

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Aug 2006 16:41:09
From:
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

The time to try that shot is when you are shots behind on the back nine
of the final round and you care nothing about anything but winning.
That is when you go for that shot. Phil chose the wrong time too. Bogey
gets him an 18 hole playoff the next day. Double hands the title to
Oglivie.

Ken

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Big_Fan wrote:
> Bow Tie wrote:
> > I just saw the shot again. Trees directly in front of him. Over the
> > grandstand, nearly into the clubhouse on the fly. Way to the right off
> > line. No reason to even attempt that shot at that point in the
> > tournament.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > Bow Tie wrote:
> > > I've never played a course where the clubhouse is not out of bounds.
> > > Tiger even admits that in the press conference. At my old club, even
> > > the halfway house was OB. He should have been hitting four from where
> > > his tee shot ended up. Clearly a poor decision and ultimately was lucky
> > > to make bogey. First poor decision since before the Open Championship.
> > >
> > > Ken
>
> Trees directly in front of him? He cleared them easily. Way right? He
> actually went over the right edge of the green. No reason to attempt
> it at that point in the tourney? That's precisely the time to do it.
> You can't make them up after 72, as Phil learned. He caught a flyer.
> Get over it.

Date: 27 Aug 2006 16:38:41
From:
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

I call 'em like I see 'em. I didn't see any temper antics from Tiger at
the Open Championship and his play was brilliant.

How about giving me a break instead of farming me out to be a Klan
member? I would like to be able to participate in this, but constantly
being attacked makes it difficult.

Ken

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mike Dalecki wrote:
> Bow Tie wrote:
>
> > Tell you what. You can go take a long walk off a short pier into Lake
> > Michigan, Herr Doktor.
>
> I don't think I've ever called you names. Why do you resort to that?
>
> > One thing that I know better than you is golf. And I have proven that
> > for you, hack.
>
> So what? That has nothing to do with this now, does it? And the fact
> that you might golf better than I doesn't mean my opinions about golf,
> or life, or you, are invalid, does it?
>
> > I do not hate Tiger and I resent what you are saying.
>
> Then what else accounts for the continual Tiger bashing?
>
> Is it because you love him? I think not.
>
> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.golf/msg/e431441b3544b609?hl=en&
>
>
> I'm shocked. You wrote a post not critical of Woods? Whatever
> possessed you?
>
> That's one.
>
> Mike
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
> RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
> RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Aug 2006 21:01:50
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Thinking you are being attacked, when you are not is....real sicko stuff.

<kenpittsjr@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1156721921.314498.255890@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>I call 'em like I see 'em. I didn't see any temper antics from Tiger at
> the Open Championship and his play was brilliant.
>
> How about giving me a break instead of farming me out to be a Klan
> member? I would like to be able to participate in this, but constantly
> being attacked makes it difficult.
>
> Ken
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Mike Dalecki wrote:
>> Bow Tie wrote:
>>
>> > Tell you what. You can go take a long walk off a short pier into Lake
>> > Michigan, Herr Doktor.
>>
>> I don't think I've ever called you names. Why do you resort to that?
>>
>> > One thing that I know better than you is golf. And I have proven that
>> > for you, hack.
>>
>> So what? That has nothing to do with this now, does it? And the fact
>> that you might golf better than I doesn't mean my opinions about golf,
>> or life, or you, are invalid, does it?
>>
>> > I do not hate Tiger and I resent what you are saying.
>>
>> Then what else accounts for the continual Tiger bashing?
>>
>> Is it because you love him? I think not.
>>
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.golf/msg/e431441b3544b609?hl=en&
>>
>>
>> I'm shocked. You wrote a post not critical of Woods? Whatever
>> possessed you?
>>
>> That's one.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
>> RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
>> RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

Date: 27 Aug 2006 18:48:16
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

kenpittsjr@gmail.com wrote:

> I call 'em like I see 'em.

Isn't that odd? So do I!

> I didn't see any temper antics from Tiger at
> the Open Championship and his play was brilliant.

Yes it was. Temper tantrums don't, however, define what is brilliant.

> How about giving me a break instead of farming me out to be a Klan
> member?

Are you? Your incessant attempts to denigrate Tiger--despite the *very*
occasional less critical post--makes it hard to presume you are anything
other than full of vitriol toward him.

> I would like to be able to participate in this, but constantly
> being attacked makes it difficult.

Now you sound like LLLarry. Let me see if I have this right: You want
to participate, but on your own terms, which apparently means you get to
say what you want without anyone pointing out what they perceive to be
inconsistencies in your rhetoric.

When you're a bit more objective, you might find a lot of people cutting
you some slack. But in the meantime, wouldn't it be prudent to wonder
what I--and a lot of other people--are cueing in on when they have these
exchanges with you?

Or are you going to keep saying that the rest of the world is out of
step with the drummer you hear?

Mike
<the hack >

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Aug 2006 16:35:36
From:
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

The time I played with you - all I saw was one over the top move after
another. I shot one under - you shot what? 90?

As long as you keep attacking me without ever letting up, you are a
hack because that is all I have ever seen from you.

Ken

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mike Dalecki wrote:
> Bow Tie wrote:
> > You're full of shit. Did Jack design Augusta National or Pebble Beach
> > or the Old Course at St Andrews?
> >
> > You do nothing but attack me. You and Dalecki and multi are the same,
> > except I've heard you can play a little. multi doesn't even play golf
> > (or work) and Dalecki is a hopeless hack.
> >
> > Ken
>
> Hopeless hack? If true, would this somehow invalidate the arguments
> I've offered? Of course not.
>
> And that aside, what does my golf skill have to do with this argument at
> all? Will Brad (glfnaz) have a better opinion just because he's a
> better golfer than I am? Of course not--though he seems to have pegged
> you pretty well.
>
> Finally, I don't know how you define "hopeless hack" but you might find
> something of interest here; it's my index:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/m8d2u
>
> And FWIW, I played in the championship flight of our club championship
> this weekend. I lost, but I was in there.
>
> And FWIW, II, I play in a league on Tuesday nights; my team leads the
> league with a 14 point lead with one week to play (20 points contested
> each week). My 9-hole index in that league is 2.
>
> I may be hopeless, but a hack?
>
> Mike
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
> RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
> RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Aug 2006 18:39:32
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

kenpittsjr@gmail.com wrote:

> The time I played with you - all I saw was one over the top move after
> another. I shot one under - you shot what? 90?

Other than the fact I'm not the same golfer I was when we played *years
ago*, what does that have to do with anything?

If the only argument you have to counter mine is that you're a better
golfer than I am, you haven't got much, have you?

> As long as you keep attacking me without ever letting up, you are a
> hack because that is all I have ever seen from you.

So if I stop "attacking you" (in your words), I'll stop being a hack?

Are you serious?

Mike

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Aug 2006 15:29:32
From:
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

I'm waiting for you to justify your "creep" characterization. You're
copping out and attacking me again.

Cite something other than the money. Otherwise, I say Jack Nicklaus is
a great gentleman of the game and you are going to have a Hell of a
time making me even blink when it comes to thinking anything else.

Ken

++++++++++++++++++++++++
glfnaz wrote:
> You could talk about Jack all day, couldn't you?
>

Date: 27 Aug 2006 19:05:23
From: David Sneddon
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

kenpittsjr@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm waiting for you to justify your "creep" characterization. You're
> copping out and attacking me again.
>
> Cite something other than the money. Otherwise, I say Jack Nicklaus is
> a great gentleman of the game and you are going to have a Hell of a
> time making me even blink when it comes to thinking anything else.
>
> Ken

My brother was fairly well connected over in the UK some years ago. He
associated with a lot of R&A types, and a few peers of the realm. Their
concensus was Jack was a great golfer but an arrogant ass.

David

Date: 27 Aug 2006 15:46:50
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Why is it that when I attack Jack, you think I'm attacking you?
Tiger worshippers have nothing on you Ken.
Do you sleep with a lil' Jack Doll?

<kenpittsjr@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1156717772.392337.295070@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> I'm waiting for you to justify your "creep" characterization. You're
> copping out and attacking me again.
>
> Cite something other than the money. Otherwise, I say Jack Nicklaus is
> a great gentleman of the game and you are going to have a Hell of a
> time making me even blink when it comes to thinking anything else.
>
> Ken
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> glfnaz wrote:
>> You could talk about Jack all day, couldn't you?
>>
>

Date: 27 Aug 2006 15:14:23
From:
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

You're going to talk about money when Jack will end up with less than
10% of what Tiger gets? Tiger's in for about $100M a year in
endorsements before he plays a single event.

Do you think Jack makes a red cent off founding and running The
Memorial tournament?

So, Jack is interested in making money. He has a lot of heirs. There
has to be more than that.

Ken

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
glfnaz wrote:
> Palmilla is one of the most beatufil spots I've been to.
> I was there in 1971. Way before all the high rise hotels went in and changed
> the area.
> It was the only hotel for 10 miles or so in either direction.
>
> The course wasn't there in those days. It was a fishing hotel for the rich
> Americans.
>
> BTW--Jack is an arrogant creep. He's never done shit for the game of golf
> where his hand isn't gettin greased.
>
> <kenpittsjr@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1156715512.873701.266580@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> > You have never posted a response to me in any serious form of
> > discussion. You never fail to attack me, just like Dalecki and multi.
> >
> > Jack is my favorite, there is no doubt. I say the least thing positive
> > and you start ragging me about hero worship. multi is the one who has
> > to plug his nose up Tiger's butt before he starts posting.
> >
> > Creep? I don't think so.
> >
> > Ever seen film of his extremely gracious behavior after the titanic
> > struggle with Watson at Turnberry? Ever seen him put on one of these
> > little temper tantrums? What about the interactions with Trevino when
> > Trevino was getting the best of him?
> >
> > So what if he uses senior tour events to enhance the position of his
> > golf course design business? If that is the worst you have on him, then
> > he has done pretty well in life. Hardly qualifies him as a creep. Want
> > a creep in sports, how about Barry Bonds?
> >
> > FWIW, I played three Nicklaus courses in Cabo (Cabo del Sol, Palmilla,
> > and El Dorado). I loved all three regardless of who designed them.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > glfnaz wrote:
> >> I never attacked you!
> >> And here you go calling me 4 letter words.
> >> I got no problem with you at all and you call me 'full of shit' and
> >> 'attacking you'.
> >>
> >> All I've done is expose Jack as a creep, and you have so much hero
> >> worship...you thought I was attacking you!
> >>
> >> Now back to Jack.
> >> OK, except for Majors and the TPC, in his last 15 years of playing (45-60
> >> years of age or so) what event did he ever play where he didn't design
> >> the
> >> course?
> >> Speak up. Name some.
> >>
> >>
> >> "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1156711953.177199.60790@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >> > You're full of shit. Did Jack design Augusta National or Pebble Beach
> >> > or the Old Course at St Andrews?
> >> >
> >> > You do nothing but attack me. You and Dalecki and multi are the same,
> >> > except I've heard you can play a little. multi doesn't even play golf
> >> > (or work) and Dalecki is a hopeless hack.
> >> >
> >> > Ken
> >> >
> >> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> > glfnaz wrote:
> >> >> Jack never would have played that course in the first place.
> >> >> He didn't design it.
> >> >> Jack only played courses he designed.
> >> >> That way he could secretly cheat and break PGA Tour rules on
> >> >> appearance
> >> >> fees
> >> >> by getting kickback commissions on the real estate sales.
> >> >> He never wanted his kids to have to actually get real jobs.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:1156707564.736122.276390@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> > Jack would never have gone for that green at that point in the
> >> >> > tournament. If it was the last hole of the tournament and he needed
> >> >> > birdie to tie, he might have gone for that shot. No way otherwise.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Ken
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> >> > glfnaz wrote:
> >> >> >> Jack Nicklaus just called and wants to know if you are still
> >> >> >> spreading
> >> >> >> his
> >> >> >> Gospel.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:1156705593.253065.250310@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> >> >I think you are a perfect example of hero worship overpowering
> >> >> >> >your
> >> >> >> > ability to objectively analyze
> >> >> >> > Ken
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >

Date: 27 Aug 2006 15:22:54
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

You could talk about Jack all day, couldn't you?

<kenpittsjr@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1156716863.591930.182000@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> You're going to talk about money when Jack will end up with less than
> 10% of what Tiger gets? Tiger's in for about $100M a year in
> endorsements before he plays a single event.
>
> Do you think Jack makes a red cent off founding and running The
> Memorial tournament?
>
> So, Jack is interested in making money. He has a lot of heirs. There
> has to be more than that.
>
> Ken
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> glfnaz wrote:
>> Palmilla is one of the most beatufil spots I've been to.
>> I was there in 1971. Way before all the high rise hotels went in and
>> changed
>> the area.
>> It was the only hotel for 10 miles or so in either direction.
>>
>> The course wasn't there in those days. It was a fishing hotel for the
>> rich
>> Americans.
>>
>> BTW--Jack is an arrogant creep. He's never done shit for the game of golf
>> where his hand isn't gettin greased.
>>
>> <kenpittsjr@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1156715512.873701.266580@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> > You have never posted a response to me in any serious form of
>> > discussion. You never fail to attack me, just like Dalecki and multi.
>> >
>> > Jack is my favorite, there is no doubt. I say the least thing positive
>> > and you start ragging me about hero worship. multi is the one who has
>> > to plug his nose up Tiger's butt before he starts posting.
>> >
>> > Creep? I don't think so.
>> >
>> > Ever seen film of his extremely gracious behavior after the titanic
>> > struggle with Watson at Turnberry? Ever seen him put on one of these
>> > little temper tantrums? What about the interactions with Trevino when
>> > Trevino was getting the best of him?
>> >
>> > So what if he uses senior tour events to enhance the position of his
>> > golf course design business? If that is the worst you have on him, then
>> > he has done pretty well in life. Hardly qualifies him as a creep. Want
>> > a creep in sports, how about Barry Bonds?
>> >
>> > FWIW, I played three Nicklaus courses in Cabo (Cabo del Sol, Palmilla,
>> > and El Dorado). I loved all three regardless of who designed them.
>> >
>> > Ken
>> >
>> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> > glfnaz wrote:
>> >> I never attacked you!
>> >> And here you go calling me 4 letter words.
>> >> I got no problem with you at all and you call me 'full of shit' and
>> >> 'attacking you'.
>> >>
>> >> All I've done is expose Jack as a creep, and you have so much hero
>> >> worship...you thought I was attacking you!
>> >>
>> >> Now back to Jack.
>> >> OK, except for Majors and the TPC, in his last 15 years of playing
>> >> (45-60
>> >> years of age or so) what event did he ever play where he didn't design
>> >> the
>> >> course?
>> >> Speak up. Name some.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1156711953.177199.60790@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > You're full of shit. Did Jack design Augusta National or Pebble
>> >> > Beach
>> >> > or the Old Course at St Andrews?
>> >> >
>> >> > You do nothing but attack me. You and Dalecki and multi are the
>> >> > same,
>> >> > except I've heard you can play a little. multi doesn't even play
>> >> > golf
>> >> > (or work) and Dalecki is a hopeless hack.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ken
>> >> >
>> >> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >> > glfnaz wrote:
>> >> >> Jack never would have played that course in the first place.
>> >> >> He didn't design it.
>> >> >> Jack only played courses he designed.
>> >> >> That way he could secretly cheat and break PGA Tour rules on
>> >> >> appearance
>> >> >> fees
>> >> >> by getting kickback commissions on the real estate sales.
>> >> >> He never wanted his kids to have to actually get real jobs.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:1156707564.736122.276390@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> > Jack would never have gone for that green at that point in the
>> >> >> > tournament. If it was the last hole of the tournament and he
>> >> >> > needed
>> >> >> > birdie to tie, he might have gone for that shot. No way
>> >> >> > otherwise.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Ken
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >> >> > glfnaz wrote:
>> >> >> >> Jack Nicklaus just called and wants to know if you are still
>> >> >> >> spreading
>> >> >> >> his
>> >> >> >> Gospel.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> news:1156705593.253065.250310@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> >> >I think you are a perfect example of hero worship overpowering
>> >> >> >> >your
>> >> >> >> > ability to objectively analyze
>> >> >> >> > Ken
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>

Date: 27 Aug 2006 15:01:28
From:
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

What if that cook doesn't show up with Tiger's ball? What if it goes
into his pocket? It becomes a lost ball and Tiger has to struggle to
make double.

You don't know squat about the game. Tiger's and Phil's mistakes are
the same with one exception, Tiger had time to recover and ultimately
he won the event.

"He chose the wrong club and caught a flyer. It happens." So typical of
the Tiger worshiper. It could not have possibly been Tiger's fault. He
is so perfect, he never makes a mistake.

Ken

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Big_Fan wrote:
> Your post is a perfect example of how biased a Tiger-basher is. He
> clearly believed he could clear the tree and get the ball near, if not
> on the green without an extraordinary shot. The ball wasn't "way
> right" as you describe, but actually went over the right edge of the
> green. He chose the wrong club and caught a flyer. It happens. If he
> chose to pitch out every time he was anywhere near a tree, then his
> average would be higher than it is today.
>
> I noticed you didn't compare this to Phil's blowup at the US Open
> again. Good choice. Despite what you said in your previous post, this
> was nowhere close to being the poor decision that Phil made. You said
> Tiger brought double bogey into play with his decision, which may or
> may not be true, but if he did, he had 36 holes to make it up. Phil
> brought double bogey into play when he had 0 holes to make it up, not
> to mention it was a much more difficult shot.
>
> Bow Tie wrote:
> > I think you are a perfect example of hero worship overpowering your
> > ability to objectively analyze a shot selection that can be considered
> > a mistake.
> >
> > I think that given Tiger's clear position of dominance, he takes way
> > too many chances. You take chances when you are running out of time and
> > birdie is manadatory. His situation was just the opposite. He was
> > leading the tournament after a very solid day of play. He had 36 holes
> > left to play. Lay up and bogey is the worst score you can reasonably
> > expect. His play on the 18th hole Friday brought double, triple and
> > worse into play. There was no reason for him to have to worry about
> > anything worse than 5. That is why what he did at the Open Championship
> > was so brilliant. Take the driver our of play because you don't need
> > it.
> >
> > Tiger is the best because he hits the driver long and mostly straight,
> > he is very solid with middle and long irons, he putts very well and he
> > has one of the best short games. I think this is just another example
> > of why his course management is something that holds him back. He needs
> > me on the bag rather than Steve Williams.
> >
> > What you said is just not correct.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > Big_Fan wrote:
> >
> > > Then he should understand that there wasn't anything wrong with Tiger's
> > > decision. This isn't Phil. I'll put Tiger's course management skills
> > > and decision-making skills up against any "player".

Date: 27 Aug 2006 14:52:50
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Bow Tie wrote:
> I just saw the shot again. Trees directly in front of him. Over the
> grandstand, nearly into the clubhouse on the fly. Way to the right off
> line. No reason to even attempt that shot at that point in the
> tournament.
>
> Ken
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Bow Tie wrote:
> > I've never played a course where the clubhouse is not out of bounds.
> > Tiger even admits that in the press conference. At my old club, even
> > the halfway house was OB. He should have been hitting four from where
> > his tee shot ended up. Clearly a poor decision and ultimately was lucky
> > to make bogey. First poor decision since before the Open Championship.
> >
> > Ken

Trees directly in front of him? He cleared them easily. Way right? He
actually went over the right edge of the green. No reason to attempt
it at that point in the tourney? That's precisely the time to do it.
You can't make them up after 72, as Phil learned. He caught a flyer.
Get over it.

Date: 27 Aug 2006 14:51:52
From:
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

You have never posted a response to me in any serious form of
discussion. You never fail to attack me, just like Dalecki and multi.

Jack is my favorite, there is no doubt. I say the least thing positive
and you start ragging me about hero worship. multi is the one who has
to plug his nose up Tiger's butt before he starts posting.

Creep? I don't think so.

Ever seen film of his extremely gracious behavior after the titanic
struggle with Watson at Turnberry? Ever seen him put on one of these
little temper tantrums? What about the interactions with Trevino when
Trevino was getting the best of him?

So what if he uses senior tour events to enhance the position of his
golf course design business? If that is the worst you have on him, then
he has done pretty well in life. Hardly qualifies him as a creep. Want
a creep in sports, how about Barry Bonds?

FWIW, I played three Nicklaus courses in Cabo (Cabo del Sol, Palmilla,
and El Dorado). I loved all three regardless of who designed them.

Ken

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
glfnaz wrote:
> I never attacked you!
> And here you go calling me 4 letter words.
> I got no problem with you at all and you call me 'full of shit' and
> 'attacking you'.
>
> All I've done is expose Jack as a creep, and you have so much hero
> worship...you thought I was attacking you!
>
> Now back to Jack.
> OK, except for Majors and the TPC, in his last 15 years of playing (45-60
> years of age or so) what event did he ever play where he didn't design the
> course?
> Speak up. Name some.
>
>
> "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1156711953.177199.60790@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > You're full of shit. Did Jack design Augusta National or Pebble Beach
> > or the Old Course at St Andrews?
> >
> > You do nothing but attack me. You and Dalecki and multi are the same,
> > except I've heard you can play a little. multi doesn't even play golf
> > (or work) and Dalecki is a hopeless hack.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > glfnaz wrote:
> >> Jack never would have played that course in the first place.
> >> He didn't design it.
> >> Jack only played courses he designed.
> >> That way he could secretly cheat and break PGA Tour rules on appearance
> >> fees
> >> by getting kickback commissions on the real estate sales.
> >> He never wanted his kids to have to actually get real jobs.
> >>
> >>
> >> "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1156707564.736122.276390@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Jack would never have gone for that green at that point in the
> >> > tournament. If it was the last hole of the tournament and he needed
> >> > birdie to tie, he might have gone for that shot. No way otherwise.
> >> >
> >> > Ken
> >> >
> >> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> > glfnaz wrote:
> >> >> Jack Nicklaus just called and wants to know if you are still spreading
> >> >> his
> >> >> Gospel.
> >> >>
> >> >> "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:1156705593.253065.250310@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> >I think you are a perfect example of hero worship overpowering your
> >> >> > ability to objectively analyze
> >> >> > Ken
> >> >> >
> >> >> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> >
> >

Date: 27 Aug 2006 15:05:20
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Palmilla is one of the most beatufil spots I've been to.
I was there in 1971. Way before all the high rise hotels went in and changed
the area.
It was the only hotel for 10 miles or so in either direction.

The course wasn't there in those days. It was a fishing hotel for the rich
Americans.

BTW--Jack is an arrogant creep. He's never done shit for the game of golf
where his hand isn't gettin greased.

<kenpittsjr@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1156715512.873701.266580@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> You have never posted a response to me in any serious form of
> discussion. You never fail to attack me, just like Dalecki and multi.
>
> Jack is my favorite, there is no doubt. I say the least thing positive
> and you start ragging me about hero worship. multi is the one who has
> to plug his nose up Tiger's butt before he starts posting.
>
> Creep? I don't think so.
>
> Ever seen film of his extremely gracious behavior after the titanic
> struggle with Watson at Turnberry? Ever seen him put on one of these
> little temper tantrums? What about the interactions with Trevino when
> Trevino was getting the best of him?
>
> So what if he uses senior tour events to enhance the position of his
> golf course design business? If that is the worst you have on him, then
> he has done pretty well in life. Hardly qualifies him as a creep. Want
> a creep in sports, how about Barry Bonds?
>
> FWIW, I played three Nicklaus courses in Cabo (Cabo del Sol, Palmilla,
> and El Dorado). I loved all three regardless of who designed them.
>
> Ken
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> glfnaz wrote:
>> I never attacked you!
>> And here you go calling me 4 letter words.
>> I got no problem with you at all and you call me 'full of shit' and
>> 'attacking you'.
>>
>> All I've done is expose Jack as a creep, and you have so much hero
>> worship...you thought I was attacking you!
>>
>> Now back to Jack.
>> OK, except for Majors and the TPC, in his last 15 years of playing (45-60
>> years of age or so) what event did he ever play where he didn't design
>> the
>> course?
>> Speak up. Name some.
>>
>>
>> "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1156711953.177199.60790@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> > You're full of shit. Did Jack design Augusta National or Pebble Beach
>> > or the Old Course at St Andrews?
>> >
>> > You do nothing but attack me. You and Dalecki and multi are the same,
>> > except I've heard you can play a little. multi doesn't even play golf
>> > (or work) and Dalecki is a hopeless hack.
>> >
>> > Ken
>> >
>> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> > glfnaz wrote:
>> >> Jack never would have played that course in the first place.
>> >> He didn't design it.
>> >> Jack only played courses he designed.
>> >> That way he could secretly cheat and break PGA Tour rules on
>> >> appearance
>> >> fees
>> >> by getting kickback commissions on the real estate sales.
>> >> He never wanted his kids to have to actually get real jobs.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1156707564.736122.276390@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > Jack would never have gone for that green at that point in the
>> >> > tournament. If it was the last hole of the tournament and he needed
>> >> > birdie to tie, he might have gone for that shot. No way otherwise.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ken
>> >> >
>> >> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >> > glfnaz wrote:
>> >> >> Jack Nicklaus just called and wants to know if you are still
>> >> >> spreading
>> >> >> his
>> >> >> Gospel.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:1156705593.253065.250310@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> >I think you are a perfect example of hero worship overpowering
>> >> >> >your
>> >> >> > ability to objectively analyze
>> >> >> > Ken
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >> >
>> >
>

Date: 27 Aug 2006 14:47:37
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Your post is a perfect example of how biased a Tiger-basher is. He
clearly believed he could clear the tree and get the ball near, if not
on the green without an extraordinary shot. The ball wasn't "way
right" as you describe, but actually went over the right edge of the
green. He chose the wrong club and caught a flyer. It happens. If he
chose to pitch out every time he was anywhere near a tree, then his
average would be higher than it is today.

I noticed you didn't compare this to Phil's blowup at the US Open
again. Good choice. Despite what you said in your previous post, this
was nowhere close to being the poor decision that Phil made. You said
Tiger brought double bogey into play with his decision, which may or
may not be true, but if he did, he had 36 holes to make it up. Phil
brought double bogey into play when he had 0 holes to make it up, not
to mention it was a much more difficult shot.

Bow Tie wrote:
> I think you are a perfect example of hero worship overpowering your
> ability to objectively analyze a shot selection that can be considered
> a mistake.
>
> I think that given Tiger's clear position of dominance, he takes way
> too many chances. You take chances when you are running out of time and
> birdie is manadatory. His situation was just the opposite. He was
> leading the tournament after a very solid day of play. He had 36 holes
> left to play. Lay up and bogey is the worst score you can reasonably
> expect. His play on the 18th hole Friday brought double, triple and
> worse into play. There was no reason for him to have to worry about
> anything worse than 5. That is why what he did at the Open Championship
> was so brilliant. Take the driver our of play because you don't need
> it.
>
> Tiger is the best because he hits the driver long and mostly straight,
> he is very solid with middle and long irons, he putts very well and he
> has one of the best short games. I think this is just another example
> of why his course management is something that holds him back. He needs
> me on the bag rather than Steve Williams.
>
> What you said is just not correct.
>
> Ken
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Big_Fan wrote:
>
> > Then he should understand that there wasn't anything wrong with Tiger's
> > decision. This isn't Phil. I'll put Tiger's course management skills
> > and decision-making skills up against any "player".

Date: 27 Aug 2006 13:52:33
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

You're full of shit. Did Jack design Augusta National or Pebble Beach
or the Old Course at St Andrews?

You do nothing but attack me. You and Dalecki and multi are the same,
except I've heard you can play a little. multi doesn't even play golf
(or work) and Dalecki is a hopeless hack.

Ken

++++++++++++++++++++++++
glfnaz wrote:
> Jack never would have played that course in the first place.
> He didn't design it.
> Jack only played courses he designed.
> That way he could secretly cheat and break PGA Tour rules on appearance fees
> by getting kickback commissions on the real estate sales.
> He never wanted his kids to have to actually get real jobs.
>
>
> "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1156707564.736122.276390@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Jack would never have gone for that green at that point in the
> > tournament. If it was the last hole of the tournament and he needed
> > birdie to tie, he might have gone for that shot. No way otherwise.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > glfnaz wrote:
> >> Jack Nicklaus just called and wants to know if you are still spreading
> >> his
> >> Gospel.
> >>
> >> "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1156705593.253065.250310@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> >> >I think you are a perfect example of hero worship overpowering your
> >> > ability to objectively analyze
> >> > Ken
> >> >
> >> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >

Date: 27 Aug 2006 17:54:15
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Bow Tie wrote:
> You're full of shit. Did Jack design Augusta National or Pebble Beach
> or the Old Course at St Andrews?
>
> You do nothing but attack me. You and Dalecki and multi are the same,
> except I've heard you can play a little. multi doesn't even play golf
> (or work) and Dalecki is a hopeless hack.
>
> Ken

Hopeless hack? If true, would this somehow invalidate the arguments
I've offered? Of course not.

And that aside, what does my golf skill have to do with this argument at
all? Will Brad (glfnaz) have a better opinion just because he's a
better golfer than I am? Of course not--though he seems to have pegged
you pretty well.

Finally, I don't know how you define "hopeless hack" but you might find
something of interest here; it's my index:

http://tinyurl.com/m8d2u

And FWIW, I played in the championship flight of our club championship
this weekend. I lost, but I was in there.

And FWIW, II, I play in a league on Tuesday nights; my team leads the
league with a 14 point lead with one week to play (20 points contested
each week). My 9-hole index in that league is 2.

I may be hopeless, but a hack?

Mike

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Aug 2006 16:46:29
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On 27 Aug 2006 13:52:33 -0700, "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com >
wrote:

>You do nothing but attack me. You and Dalecki and multi are the same,
>except I've heard you can play a little. multi doesn't even play golf
>(or work) and Dalecki is a hopeless hack.
>
>Ken

I haven't played with glfnaz, but Dalecki came to Denton, played my
course for the first time (which you know) and shot 76, with a 4
putt. He is NOT a hacker Ken.
___,
\o

Date: 27 Aug 2006 14:39:13
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

I never attacked you!
And here you go calling me 4 letter words.
I got no problem with you at all and you call me 'full of shit' and
'attacking you'.

All I've done is expose Jack as a creep, and you have so much hero
worship...you thought I was attacking you!

Now back to Jack.
OK, except for Majors and the TPC, in his last 15 years of playing (45-60
years of age or so) what event did he ever play where he didn't design the
course?
Speak up. Name some.

"Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1156711953.177199.60790@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> You're full of shit. Did Jack design Augusta National or Pebble Beach
> or the Old Course at St Andrews?
>
> You do nothing but attack me. You and Dalecki and multi are the same,
> except I've heard you can play a little. multi doesn't even play golf
> (or work) and Dalecki is a hopeless hack.
>
> Ken
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> glfnaz wrote:
>> Jack never would have played that course in the first place.
>> He didn't design it.
>> Jack only played courses he designed.
>> That way he could secretly cheat and break PGA Tour rules on appearance
>> fees
>> by getting kickback commissions on the real estate sales.
>> He never wanted his kids to have to actually get real jobs.
>>
>>
>> "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1156707564.736122.276390@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> > Jack would never have gone for that green at that point in the
>> > tournament. If it was the last hole of the tournament and he needed
>> > birdie to tie, he might have gone for that shot. No way otherwise.
>> >
>> > Ken
>> >
>> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> > glfnaz wrote:
>> >> Jack Nicklaus just called and wants to know if you are still spreading
>> >> his
>> >> Gospel.
>> >>
>> >> "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1156705593.253065.250310@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >I think you are a perfect example of hero worship overpowering your
>> >> > ability to objectively analyze
>> >> > Ken
>> >> >
>> >> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >
>

Date: 27 Aug 2006 15:18:58
From: multi
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 14:39:13 -0700, "glfnaz" <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com >
wrote:
>I never attacked you!
>And here you go calling me 4 letter words.
>I got no problem with you at all and you call me 'full of shit' and
>'attacking you'.

There are two rules with Pitts:

1) If you have ever disagreed with him, then you are always attacking
him.

2) If he can beat you by ten shots, then he knows more about golf than
you do. If Tiger can beat him by ten shots, then he knows more about
golf than Tiger does.

Date: 27 Aug 2006 13:24:57
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

How is that any different than what I said? He would prefer to win, but
all the seconds he had in majors are just another indication of his
greatness.

http://www.nicklaus.com/nicklaus_facts/majors.php

Ken

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2006 12:39:28 -0700, "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Jack would never have gone for that green at that point in the
> >tournament. If it was the last hole of the tournament and he needed
> >birdie to tie, he might have gone for that shot. No way otherwise.
>
> Jack would never settle for 2nd place...

Date: 27 Aug 2006 13:05:09
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Both had no clear view of the green. Phil's poor decision was more
magnified by the fact that he hit a branch immediately and hardly
advanced the ball at all.

Ken

+++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> Bow Tie <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I think you are a perfect example of hero worship overpowering your
> > ability to objectively analyze a shot selection that can be considered
> > a mistake.
> >
> > I think that given Tiger's clear position of dominance, he takes way
> > too many chances. You take chances when you are running out of time and
> > birdie is manadatory. His situation was just the opposite. He was
> > leading the tournament after a very solid day of play. He had 36 holes
> > left to play. Lay up and bogey is the worst score you can reasonably
> > expect.
>
> My only problem with this is the assumption that he could/should
> have known he might carry a 9 as far as he did. 210 yards uphill
> is a helluva long carry for a 9 iron, even for Tiger. There's
> what, a 1-in-20 chance of him doing that from that lie, if that?
> It's nowhere near as predictable as Phil's bad results at Winged
> Foot, IMO.
>
> I agree that he ultimately bears the responsibility for the
> decision, but I don't think it was as poor a decision as you
> do, just because of how extreme the result of the shot was.
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/

Date: 27 Aug 2006 12:59:12
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Tell you what. You can go take a long walk off a short pier into Lake
Michigan, Herr Doktor.

One thing that I know better than you is golf. And I have proven that
for you, hack.

I do not hate Tiger and I resent what you are saying.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.golf/msg/e431441b3544b609?hl=3Den&

Otherwise, best regards.

Ken

++++++++++++++++++++++
Mike Dalecki wrote:
> Bow Tie wrote:
>
> > admit
> > One entry found for admit.
> >
> >
> > Main Entry: ad=B7mit
> > Pronunciation: &d-'mit, ad-
> > Function: verb
> > Inflected Form(s): ad=B7mit=B7ted; ad=B7mit=B7ting
> > Etymology: Middle English admitten, from Latin admittere, from ad- +
> > mittere to send
> > transitive verb
> > 1 a : to allow scope for : PERMIT <admits no possibility of
> > misunderstanding> b : to concede as true or valid <admitted making a
> > mistake>
> > 2 a : to allow entry (as to a place, fellowship, or privilege) <an open
> > window had admitted rain> <admitted to the club> b : to accept into a
> > hospital as an inpatient <he was admitted last night for chest pains>
> > intransitive verb
> > 1 : to give entrance or access
> > 2 a : ALLOW, PERMIT <admits of two interpretations> b : to make
> > acknowledgment -- used with to
> > synonym see ACKNOWLEDGE
> >
> > My use of the word admit was valid.
>
> It was a peculiar choice, wasn't it? Of all the words you could have
> chosen, you chose that one. Any particular reason why? Of course, one
> explanation is the one I've advanced.
>
>
> For someone who claims to have a
> > PhD
>
> Ouch! Stop pummeling me like that! It's mean! It hurts!
>
> (my sister and bro in law actually do - they instruct me all the
> > time in the meaning of words - I always verify what they say and they
> > are always right - unlike you), you don't know the English language
> > very well.
>
> Actually, I am sure I know it far better than do you.
>
> But that aside, I was of course quite right about your selection of
> words, wasn't I?
>
>
> > You have gone off the deep end in trying to portray everything I post
> > as hateful.
>
> Tell me that's not from the department of hyperbole. Everything? I
> don't respond to most of the mush you write, so how can that possibly be
> true?
>
>
> > My point is that Tiger made a mistake in the way that he
> > played his approach on the 36tth hole of this tournament.
>
> That wasn't the main point in your OP. It was that he should have been
> hitting 4, and you'd never seen a clubhouse so designated, and yes, it
> was a poor decision. The poor decision wasn't the bulk of the post.
>
> Given what
> > happened, he could easily have ended up with a lost ball situation
> > (guess what - stroke and distance - just like OB). I think all things
> > considered, a poor decision just like Phil made a whole bunch of
> > during the 72nd hole of the US Open.
>
> Maybe, but that sure wasn't the major point of the post in which you
> described it to begin with, was it?
>
> You can keep shifting what you said and how you said it, but that won't
> change what your OP was about, will it? For example, now it's all about
> the "bad decision," but in your OP you noted "He should have been
> hitting four from where his tee shot ended up."
>
> You see, Ken, PhDs can see that kind of thing a mile away.
>
> Even if you can't.
>
>
> > Again, poor usage on your part. Taking an adversarial position (not
> > neutral) does not imply hatred.
>
> But you've virtually always had that tendency, Ken. I can't recall when
> you didn't.
>
> When virtually all you do is take an adversarial position, Ken, what
> else are we to conclude?
>
> I conclude you hate him. For whatever reason, I don't know--because he
> challenges Jack's record, because of other reasons, whatever.
>
> I cannot imagine anyone on RSG honestly saying they feel you are
> objective in your postings about Tiger. Your negative posts about him
> far outweigh--by a 19-1 margin? Perhaps--whatever positive posts you've
> ever made about him.
>
> You see, Ken, PhDs are trained, at least in the tradition in which I was
> trained, to see patterns. Your patterns are pretty clear.
>
> Quite a logical leap Herr Doktor.
>
> Well, you can post what you like. It doesn't change your history, and
> it doesn't change your lack of objectivity. Even if you call me names.
>
> > You are clearly attacking me, hack.
>
> Ouch again!
>
> I'm just getting pummeled here! Let up, Ken, let up!
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
> RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
> RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Aug 2006 18:08:15
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Bow Tie wrote:

> Tell you what. You can go take a long walk off a short pier into Lake
> Michigan, Herr Doktor.

I don't think I've ever called you names. Why do you resort to that?

> One thing that I know better than you is golf. And I have proven that
> for you, hack.

So what? That has nothing to do with this now, does it? And the fact
that you might golf better than I doesn't mean my opinions about golf,
or life, or you, are invalid, does it?

> I do not hate Tiger and I resent what you are saying.

Then what else accounts for the continual Tiger bashing?

Is it because you love him? I think not.

> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.golf/msg/e431441b3544b609?hl=en&

I'm shocked. You wrote a post not critical of Woods? Whatever
possessed you?

That's one.

Mike

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Aug 2006 12:47:35
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

I just saw the shot again. Trees directly in front of him. Over the
grandstand, nearly into the clubhouse on the fly. Way to the right off
line. No reason to even attempt that shot at that point in the
tournament.

Ken

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bow Tie wrote:
> I've never played a course where the clubhouse is not out of bounds.
> Tiger even admits that in the press conference. At my old club, even
> the halfway house was OB. He should have been hitting four from where
> his tee shot ended up. Clearly a poor decision and ultimately was lucky
> to make bogey. First poor decision since before the Open Championship.
>
> Ken

Date: 27 Aug 2006 12:39:28
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Jack would never have gone for that green at that point in the
tournament. If it was the last hole of the tournament and he needed
birdie to tie, he might have gone for that shot. No way otherwise.

Ken

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
glfnaz wrote:
> Jack Nicklaus just called and wants to know if you are still spreading his
> Gospel.
>
> "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1156705593.253065.250310@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> >I think you are a perfect example of hero worship overpowering your
> > ability to objectively analyze
> > Ken
> >
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: 27 Aug 2006 13:45:34
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Jack never would have played that course in the first place.
He didn't design it.
Jack only played courses he designed.
That way he could secretly cheat and break PGA Tour rules on appearance fees
by getting kickback commissions on the real estate sales.
He never wanted his kids to have to actually get real jobs.

"Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1156707564.736122.276390@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Jack would never have gone for that green at that point in the
> tournament. If it was the last hole of the tournament and he needed
> birdie to tie, he might have gone for that shot. No way otherwise.
>
> Ken
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> glfnaz wrote:
>> Jack Nicklaus just called and wants to know if you are still spreading
>> his
>> Gospel.
>>
>> "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1156705593.253065.250310@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> >I think you are a perfect example of hero worship overpowering your
>> > ability to objectively analyze
>> > Ken
>> >
>> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>

Date: 27 Aug 2006 13:40:02
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Jack Worship clouds your vision.

"Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1156707564.736122.276390@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Jack would never have gone for that green at that point in the
> tournament. If it was the last hole of the tournament and he needed
> birdie to tie, he might have gone for that shot. No way otherwise.
>
> Ken
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> glfnaz wrote:
>> Jack Nicklaus just called and wants to know if you are still spreading
>> his
>> Gospel.
>>
>> "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1156705593.253065.250310@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> >I think you are a perfect example of hero worship overpowering your
>> > ability to objectively analyze
>> > Ken
>> >
>> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>

Date: 27 Aug 2006 20:17:32
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On 27 Aug 2006 12:39:28 -0700, "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com >
wrote:

>Jack would never have gone for that green at that point in the
>tournament. If it was the last hole of the tournament and he needed
>birdie to tie, he might have gone for that shot. No way otherwise.

Jack would never settle for 2nd place...

Date: 27 Aug 2006 12:06:33
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

I think you are a perfect example of hero worship overpowering your
ability to objectively analyze a shot selection that can be considered
a mistake.

I think that given Tiger's clear position of dominance, he takes way
too many chances. You take chances when you are running out of time and
birdie is manadatory. His situation was just the opposite. He was
leading the tournament after a very solid day of play. He had 36 holes
left to play. Lay up and bogey is the worst score you can reasonably
expect. His play on the 18th hole Friday brought double, triple and
worse into play. There was no reason for him to have to worry about
anything worse than 5. That is why what he did at the Open Championship
was so brilliant. Take the driver our of play because you don't need
it.

Tiger is the best because he hits the driver long and mostly straight,
he is very solid with middle and long irons, he putts very well and he
has one of the best short games. I think this is just another example
of why his course management is something that holds him back. He needs
me on the bag rather than Steve Williams.

What you said is just not correct.

Ken

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Big_Fan wrote:

> Then he should understand that there wasn't anything wrong with Tiger's
> decision. This isn't Phil. I'll put Tiger's course management skills
> and decision-making skills up against any "player".

Date: 27 Aug 2006 19:38:57
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Bow Tie <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com > wrote:
> I think you are a perfect example of hero worship overpowering your
> ability to objectively analyze a shot selection that can be considered
> a mistake.
>
> I think that given Tiger's clear position of dominance, he takes way
> too many chances. You take chances when you are running out of time and
> birdie is manadatory. His situation was just the opposite. He was
> leading the tournament after a very solid day of play. He had 36 holes
> left to play. Lay up and bogey is the worst score you can reasonably
> expect.

My only problem with this is the assumption that he could/should
have known he might carry a 9 as far as he did. 210 yards uphill
is a helluva long carry for a 9 iron, even for Tiger. There's
what, a 1-in-20 chance of him doing that from that lie, if that?
It's nowhere near as predictable as Phil's bad results at Winged
Foot, IMO.

I agree that he ultimately bears the responsibility for the
decision, but I don't think it was as poor a decision as you
do, just because of how extreme the result of the shot was.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 27 Aug 2006 12:33:41
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Jack Nicklaus just called and wants to know if you are still spreading his
Gospel.

"Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1156705593.253065.250310@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>I think you are a perfect example of hero worship overpowering your
> ability to objectively analyze
> Ken
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: 27 Aug 2006 11:39:11
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Thank you for being reasonable, unlike Dalecki.

Ken

+++++++++++++++++++++++
annika1980 wrote:
> Damn, that's twice I've agreed with you in the same thread.
> One of us must be losing it.
>
> The deal at the Masters was just a huge brainfart, way up there on the
> Mickelson scale.
> A flyer lie from the rough is just a bad shot. What makes Tiger and
> Jack special is not hitting every shot perfectly. They've both hit
> their share of clankers. But both of them are known for thinking their
> way around the course and avoiding the silly costly mistakes.

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 27 Aug 2006 11:35:31
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

I've seen a replay several times. Way long and way right. Clearly time
to cut losses and lay up. The way the course is marked is beyond his
control, but as I mentioned elsewhere, this could have become a lost
ball situation and the penalty would have been the same.

Ken

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
annika1980 wrote:
> Bow Tie wrote:
> > The problem is in how that course is marked. Never seen a course when a
> > ball on top of the clubhouse could be considered still in play and
> > deserving of relief.
> >
>
> Me neither. Although I didn't see this latest situation, it sure
> sounds like Tiger got favorable treatment this time. I guess when
> you're the Greatest Golfer of All Time then you get those calls. Kinda
> like how Michael Jordan could draw a foul just by dribbling past the
> free throw line. Or like Greg Maddux who has such a great rep that any
> pitch within 6 inches of the plate is called a strike. And don't get me
> started on the fuckin Pittsburgh Stealers.

Date: 27 Aug 2006 11:29:28
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Bow Tie wrote:
>
> I do not hate Tiger.
>
> The problem I have is that his shot was wild and ill advised. Not only
> was he long, as has been mentioned, he was way off line to the right.
> He was on the last hole of a very good round. Lay out in the fairway,
> use the wedge to try to save par. I am reminded of what he got away
> with on the 71st hole of last year's Masters. He could have blown the
> whole tournment.

Damn, that's twice I've agreed with you in the same thread.
One of us must be losing it.

The deal at the Masters was just a huge brainfart, way up there on the
Mickelson scale.
A flyer lie from the rough is just a bad shot. What makes Tiger and
Jack special is not hitting every shot perfectly. They've both hit
their share of clankers. But both of them are known for thinking their
way around the course and avoiding the silly costly mistakes.

Date: 27 Aug 2006 11:28:54
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

admit
One entry found for admit.

Main Entry: ad=B7mit
Pronunciation: &d-'mit, ad-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): ad=B7mit=B7ted; ad=B7mit=B7ting
Etymology: Middle English admitten, from Latin admittere, from ad- +
mittere to send
transitive verb
1 a : to allow scope for : PERMIT <admits no possibility of
misunderstanding > b : to concede as true or valid <admitted making a
mistake >
2 a : to allow entry (as to a place, fellowship, or privilege) <an open
window had admitted rain > <admitted to the club> b : to accept into a
hospital as an inpatient <he was admitted last night for chest pains >
intransitive verb
1 : to give entrance or access
2 a : ALLOW, PERMIT <admits of two interpretations > b : to make
acknowledgment -- used with to
synonym see ACKNOWLEDGE

My use of the word admit was valid. For someone who claims to have a
PhD (my sister and bro in law actually do - they instruct me all the
time in the meaning of words - I always verify what they say and they
are always right - unlike you), you don't know the English language
very well.

You have gone off the deep end in trying to portray everything I post
as hateful. My point is that Tiger made a mistake in the way that he
played his approach on the 36tth hole of this tournament. Given what
happened, he could easily have ended up with a lost ball situation
(guess what - stroke and distance - just like OB). I think all things
considered, a poor decision just like Phil made a whole bunch of
during the 72nd hole of the US Open.

Again, poor usage on your part. Taking an adversarial position (not
neutral) does not imply hatred. Quite a logical leap Herr Doktor.

You are clearly attacking me, hack.

Ken

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Mike Dalecki wrote:
> Bow Tie wrote:
>
> > Mike, you are really stretching to attack me.
>
> Maybe it's not attacking. Maybe it's exposing.
>
> I saw Tiger (in an
> > interview) question why the clubhouse was not OB. He admitted that the
> > course is marked funny.
>
> He admitted it? Your choice of words is, well, interesting.
>
> Know why? Because there is no objective way of determining what "marked
> funny" means. If you'd said in his interview that Tiger said he thought
> it was marked funny, that would be far different in the meaning you're
> trying to project.
>
> But whe you use those words--that he "admitted" something--you imply
> that he got away with something, or that he knew he was wrong, or that
> he is not deserving of the result.
>
>
>
> > I have never once said that he did anything
> > outside the rules. The only time I have even approached that was when
> > that boulder was moved.
>
> I never thought the boulder was outside the rules, though I thought that
> the rule should be changed.
>
>
> > I do not hate Tiger.
>
> You have a strange way of projecting that neutrality.
>
> > The problem I have
>
> The problem *you* have?
>
> > is that his shot was wild and ill advised. Not only
> > was he long, as has been mentioned, he was way off line to the right.
> > He was on the last hole of a very good round. Lay out in the fairway,
> > use the wedge to try to save par. I am reminded of what he got away
> > with on the 71st hole of last year's Masters. He could have blown the
> > whole tournment.
>
> Maybe. And maybe he's just human and screws up once in a while.
>
> And why should you have a problem with it at all? You always seem to
> have a problem with how Tiger plays. Either you don't like his decorum,
> or language, or behavior, or shot selection, or mental game, or course
> management, or....
>
> And you say you do not hate Tiger?
>
> > With his performance at Hoyloak, I thought he had gotten beyond these
> > wild recovery shots. I saw him as being on his way to a golden age of
> > wins during his 30's.
>
> Maybe he thought he had a shot and just made a mistake. One shot in one
> round--not a major--and you've changed your opinion of him?
>
> From what?
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
> RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
> RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Aug 2006 14:42:59
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Bow Tie wrote:

> admit
> One entry found for admit.
>
>
> Main Entry: ad�mit
> Pronunciation: &d-'mit, ad-
> Function: verb
> Inflected Form(s): ad�mit�ted; ad�mit�ting
> Etymology: Middle English admitten, from Latin admittere, from ad- +
> mittere to send
> transitive verb
> 1 a : to allow scope for : PERMIT <admits no possibility of
> misunderstanding> b : to concede as true or valid <admitted making a
> mistake>
> 2 a : to allow entry (as to a place, fellowship, or privilege) <an open
> window had admitted rain> <admitted to the club> b : to accept into a
> hospital as an inpatient <he was admitted last night for chest pains>
> intransitive verb
> 1 : to give entrance or access
> 2 a : ALLOW, PERMIT <admits of two interpretations> b : to make
> acknowledgment -- used with to
> synonym see ACKNOWLEDGE
>
> My use of the word admit was valid.

It was a peculiar choice, wasn't it? Of all the words you could have
chosen, you chose that one. Any particular reason why? Of course, one
explanation is the one I've advanced.

For someone who claims to have a
> PhD

Ouch! Stop pummeling me like that! It's mean! It hurts!

(my sister and bro in law actually do - they instruct me all the
> time in the meaning of words - I always verify what they say and they
> are always right - unlike you), you don't know the English language
> very well.

Actually, I am sure I know it far better than do you.

But that aside, I was of course quite right about your selection of
words, wasn't I?

> You have gone off the deep end in trying to portray everything I post
> as hateful.

Tell me that's not from the department of hyperbole. Everything? I
don't respond to most of the mush you write, so how can that possibly be
true?

> My point is that Tiger made a mistake in the way that he
> played his approach on the 36tth hole of this tournament.

That wasn't the main point in your OP. It was that he should have been
hitting 4, and you'd never seen a clubhouse so designated, and yes, it
was a poor decision. The poor decision wasn't the bulk of the post.

Given what
> happened, he could easily have ended up with a lost ball situation
> (guess what - stroke and distance - just like OB). I think all things
> considered, a poor decision just like Phil made a whole bunch of
> during the 72nd hole of the US Open.

Maybe, but that sure wasn't the major point of the post in which you
described it to begin with, was it?

You can keep shifting what you said and how you said it, but that won't
change what your OP was about, will it? For example, now it's all about
the "bad decision," but in your OP you noted "He should have been
hitting four from where his tee shot ended up."

You see, Ken, PhDs can see that kind of thing a mile away.

Even if you can't.

> Again, poor usage on your part. Taking an adversarial position (not
> neutral) does not imply hatred.

But you've virtually always had that tendency, Ken. I can't recall when
you didn't.

When virtually all you do is take an adversarial position, Ken, what
else are we to conclude?

I conclude you hate him. For whatever reason, I don't know--because he
challenges Jack's record, because of other reasons, whatever.

I cannot imagine anyone on RSG honestly saying they feel you are
objective in your postings about Tiger. Your negative posts about him
far outweigh--by a 19-1 margin? Perhaps--whatever positive posts you've
ever made about him.

You see, Ken, PhDs are trained, at least in the tradition in which I was
trained, to see patterns. Your patterns are pretty clear.

Quite a logical leap Herr Doktor.

Well, you can post what you like. It doesn't change your history, and
it doesn't change your lack of objectivity. Even if you call me names.

> You are clearly attacking me, hack.

Ouch again!

I'm just getting pummeled here! Let up, Ken, let up!

Mike

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Aug 2006 10:39:03
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Tex wrote:
> Bobby Knight wrote:
> > Seems to me that it's a lock for you, and easy money. You still are
> > a blowhard and a liar Rob. Step up and back up your bragging.
>
> Frosted Balls will never put up Bobby, don't waste the bandwidth.
> Hell, he's the same chicken shit that as an altered ego challenged me
> to a match. Just to spout off, never intending to make it real.

How sweet to see the sick, old cronies stick together. F

Date: 28 Aug 2006 12:51:48
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On 28 Aug 2006 10:39:03 -0700, "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com > wrote:

>
>Tex wrote:
>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>> > Seems to me that it's a lock for you, and easy money. You still are
>> > a blowhard and a liar Rob. Step up and back up your bragging.
>>
>> Frosted Balls will never put up Bobby, don't waste the bandwidth.
>> Hell, he's the same chicken shit that as an altered ego challenged me
>> to a match. Just to spout off, never intending to make it real.
>
>How sweet to see the sick, old cronies stick together. F

How revealing to see someone with no idea what he's talking about
enter a thread. Tex isn't old, and I'm not sick. Rob is an
inveterate liar, as you are an inveterate boob.
___,
\o

Date: 29 Aug 2006 09:16:53
From: newellsatwsu
Subject: Re: Attn-RSG (was Re: On top of the clubhouse?)

Tex wrote:
> long&left wrote:
> > my next RSG major will be RSG-NW again next May. Will be attending an
> > RSG-mini-SF outing a week from Friday, and if Bob Patterson gets the
> > RSG-SoCal together on Super Bowl weekend I'll attend that. Where in that
> > group would you like your free beer? :)
>
> I think the RSG-SoCal will be perfect...Golf, SuperBowl and Free Beer
> is a perfect weekend :)

I am planning to attend as well. We'll see about the free beer part.

Anyone heard from Rancho Bob lately? (I know he's not Ranchoo Bob
anymore, but I'll still call him Rancho Bob. :-))

Date: 29 Aug 2006 09:23:49
From: long&left
Subject: Re: Attn-RSG (was Re: On top of the clubhouse?)

newellsatwsu wrote:
> Tex wrote:
>
>>long&left wrote:
>>
>>>my next RSG major will be RSG-NW again next May. Will be attending an
>>>RSG-mini-SF outing a week from Friday, and if Bob Patterson gets the
>>>RSG-SoCal together on Super Bowl weekend I'll attend that. Where in that
>>>group would you like your free beer? :)
>>
>>I think the RSG-SoCal will be perfect...Golf, SuperBowl and Free Beer
>>is a perfect weekend :)
>
>
> I am planning to attend as well. We'll see about the free beer part.
>
> Anyone heard from Rancho Bob lately? (I know he's not Ranchoo Bob
> anymore, but I'll still call him Rancho Bob. :-))
>

he's busy with the new house, painting and such, but I emailed him this
morning asking for an update and offering help regarding RSG-SoCal. And,
I'll see him in the bay area a week from Fri for a mini RSG-Bay Area get
together. He should now be herewith known as HB Bob :)
Dave

Date: 29 Aug 2006 08:04:06
From: Tex
Subject: Re: Attn-RSG (was Re: On top of the clubhouse?)

long&left wrote:
> Tex wrote:
> > long&left wrote:
> >
> >>Tex wrote:
> >>
> >>>long&left wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>John van der Pflum wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>On 28 Aug 2006 20:17:55 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>long&left wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Bobby Knight wrote:
> >>>>>>>(snip)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Don't even go there. There are players here that have 10 times that
> >>>>>>>>amount at risk two or three times a week. Big deal.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>you mean, you can bet on golf? damn! ya learn something new every day :)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I'd never bet ya...your tan is too good and your hair is almost
> >>>>>>silver...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Tex
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>And you should see the SOB putt.........
> >>>>
> >>>>why thank you, but you know the old saying: "putt for show, score for
> >>>>beer" :)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Eggs Act Lee :)
> >>>I hereby challenge you to the Ultimate Beer Match (tm)
> >>>Beers for the weekend at the next RSG event we meet at, or somewhere
> >>>else by chance.
> >>>
> >>>No strokes for you!
> >>>(since you aren't skinny like Pflum, you can't beg for 2/side)
> >>>
> >>>Tex
> >>>who rules in Beer Matches
> >>>
> >>
> >>my next RSG major will be RSG-NW again next May. Will be attending an
> >>RSG-mini-SF outing a week from Friday, and if Bob Patterson gets the
> >>RSG-SoCal together on Super Bowl weekend I'll attend that. Where in that
> >>group would you like your free beer? :)
> >
> >
> > I think the RSG-SoCal will be perfect...Golf, SuperBowl and Free Beer
> > is a perfect weekend :)
> >
> > Tex
> >
> I'd look forward to seeing you again and playing an UBM (tm)

Ditto my good man!

Tex

Date: 29 Aug 2006 07:25:40
From: Tex
Subject: Re: Attn-RSG (was Re: On top of the clubhouse?)

long&left wrote:
> Tex wrote:
> > long&left wrote:
> >
> >>John van der Pflum wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 28 Aug 2006 20:17:55 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>long&left wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Bobby Knight wrote:
> >>>>>(snip)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Don't even go there. There are players here that have 10 times that
> >>>>>>amount at risk two or three times a week. Big deal.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>you mean, you can bet on golf? damn! ya learn something new every day :)
> >>>>
> >>>>I'd never bet ya...your tan is too good and your hair is almost
> >>>>silver...
> >>>>
> >>>>Tex
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>And you should see the SOB putt.........
> >>
> >>why thank you, but you know the old saying: "putt for show, score for
> >>beer" :)
> >
> >
> > Eggs Act Lee :)
> > I hereby challenge you to the Ultimate Beer Match (tm)
> > Beers for the weekend at the next RSG event we meet at, or somewhere
> > else by chance.
> >
> > No strokes for you!
> > (since you aren't skinny like Pflum, you can't beg for 2/side)
> >
> > Tex
> > who rules in Beer Matches
> >
>
> my next RSG major will be RSG-NW again next May. Will be attending an
> RSG-mini-SF outing a week from Friday, and if Bob Patterson gets the
> RSG-SoCal together on Super Bowl weekend I'll attend that. Where in that
> group would you like your free beer? :)

I think the RSG-SoCal will be perfect...Golf, SuperBowl and Free Beer
is a perfect weekend :)

Tex

Date: 29 Aug 2006 07:30:09
From: long&left
Subject: Re: Attn-RSG (was Re: On top of the clubhouse?)

Tex wrote:
> long&left wrote:
>
>>Tex wrote:
>>
>>>long&left wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>John van der Pflum wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 28 Aug 2006 20:17:55 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>long&left wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Bobby Knight wrote:
>>>>>>>(snip)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Don't even go there. There are players here that have 10 times that
>>>>>>>>amount at risk two or three times a week. Big deal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>you mean, you can bet on golf? damn! ya learn something new every day :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'd never bet ya...your tan is too good and your hair is almost
>>>>>>silver...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Tex
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And you should see the SOB putt.........
>>>>
>>>>why thank you, but you know the old saying: "putt for show, score for
>>>>beer" :)
>>>
>>>
>>>Eggs Act Lee :)
>>>I hereby challenge you to the Ultimate Beer Match (tm)
>>>Beers for the weekend at the next RSG event we meet at, or somewhere
>>>else by chance.
>>>
>>>No strokes for you!
>>>(since you aren't skinny like Pflum, you can't beg for 2/side)
>>>
>>>Tex
>>>who rules in Beer Matches
>>>
>>
>>my next RSG major will be RSG-NW again next May. Will be attending an
>>RSG-mini-SF outing a week from Friday, and if Bob Patterson gets the
>>RSG-SoCal together on Super Bowl weekend I'll attend that. Where in that
>>group would you like your free beer? :)
>
>
> I think the RSG-SoCal will be perfect...Golf, SuperBowl and Free Beer
> is a perfect weekend :)
>
> Tex
>
I'd look forward to seeing you again and playing an UBM (tm)
Dave

--
Dave
You are meant to play the ball as it lies, a fact that may help to touch
on your own objective approach to life. ~Grantland Rice

Date: 29 Aug 2006 07:11:00
From: Tex
Subject: Re: Attn-RSG (was Re: On top of the clubhouse?)

long&left wrote:
> John van der Pflum wrote:
> > On 28 Aug 2006 20:17:55 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>long&left wrote:
> >>
> >>>Bobby Knight wrote:
> >>>(snip)
> >>>
> >>>>Don't even go there. There are players here that have 10 times that
> >>>>amount at risk two or three times a week. Big deal.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>you mean, you can bet on golf? damn! ya learn something new every day :)
> >>
> >>I'd never bet ya...your tan is too good and your hair is almost
> >>silver...
> >>
> >>Tex
> >
> >
> > And you should see the SOB putt.........
>
> why thank you, but you know the old saying: "putt for show, score for
> beer" :)

Eggs Act Lee :)
I hereby challenge you to the Ultimate Beer Match (tm)
Beers for the weekend at the next RSG event we meet at, or somewhere
else by chance.

No strokes for you!
(since you aren't skinny like Pflum, you can't beg for 2/side)

Tex
who rules in Beer Matches

Date: 29 Aug 2006 07:16:16
From: long&left
Subject: Re: Attn-RSG (was Re: On top of the clubhouse?)

Tex wrote:
> long&left wrote:
>
>>John van der Pflum wrote:
>>
>>>On 28 Aug 2006 20:17:55 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>long&left wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Bobby Knight wrote:
>>>>>(snip)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Don't even go there. There are players here that have 10 times that
>>>>>>amount at risk two or three times a week. Big deal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>you mean, you can bet on golf? damn! ya learn something new every day :)
>>>>
>>>>I'd never bet ya...your tan is too good and your hair is almost
>>>>silver...
>>>>
>>>>Tex
>>>
>>>
>>>And you should see the SOB putt.........
>>
>>why thank you, but you know the old saying: "putt for show, score for
>>beer" :)
>
>
> Eggs Act Lee :)
> I hereby challenge you to the Ultimate Beer Match (tm)
> Beers for the weekend at the next RSG event we meet at, or somewhere
> else by chance.
>
> No strokes for you!
> (since you aren't skinny like Pflum, you can't beg for 2/side)
>
> Tex
> who rules in Beer Matches
>

my next RSG major will be RSG-NW again next May. Will be attending an
RSG-mini-SF outing a week from Friday, and if Bob Patterson gets the
RSG-SoCal together on Super Bowl weekend I'll attend that. Where in that
group would you like your free beer? :)
Dave

--
Dave
You are meant to play the ball as it lies, a fact that may help to touch
on your own objective approach to life. ~Grantland Rice

Date: 28 Aug 2006 10:04:39
From: Tex
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Bobby Knight wrote:
> Seems to me that it's a lock for you, and easy money. You still are
> a blowhard and a liar Rob. Step up and back up your bragging.

Frosted Balls will never put up Bobby, don't waste the bandwidth.
Hell, he's the same chicken shit that as an altered ego challenged me
to a match. Just to spout off, never intending to make it real.

He's better left to the ignore stack.

Tex

Date: 28 Aug 2006 20:17:55
From: Tex
Subject: Re: Attn-RSG (was Re: On top of the clubhouse?)

long&left wrote:
> Bobby Knight wrote:
> (snip)
> >
> > Don't even go there. There are players here that have 10 times that
> > amount at risk two or three times a week. Big deal.
> >
>
> you mean, you can bet on golf? damn! ya learn something new every day :)

I'd never bet ya...your tan is too good and your hair is almost
silver...

Tex

Date: 29 Aug 2006 06:59:27
From: long&left
Subject: Re: Attn-RSG (was Re: On top of the clubhouse?)

Tex wrote:
> long&left wrote:
>
>>Bobby Knight wrote:
>>(snip)
>>
>>>Don't even go there. There are players here that have 10 times that
>>>amount at risk two or three times a week. Big deal.
>>>
>>
>>you mean, you can bet on golf? damn! ya learn something new every day :)
>
>
> I'd never bet ya...your tan is too good and your hair is almost
> silver...
>
> Tex
>

if only I had the game to go with the persona :)
Dave

Date: 29 Aug 2006 23:49:51
From: Peter Strauss
Subject: Re: Attn-RSG (was Re: On top of the clubhouse?)

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 06:59:27 -0700, long&left <nospam@diespammers.com >
wrote:

> Tex wrote:
> > long&left wrote:
> >
> >>Bobby Knight wrote:
> >>(snip)
> >>
> >>>Don't even go there. There are players here that have 10 times that
> >>>amount at risk two or three times a week. Big deal.
> >>>
> >>
> >>you mean, you can bet on golf? damn! ya learn something new every day :)
> >
> >
> > I'd never bet ya...your tan is too good and your hair is almost
> > silver...
> >
> > Tex
> >
>
> if only I had the game to go with the persona :)
Or vice versa.
:-)

Date: 29 Aug 2006 18:26:13
From: long&left
Subject: Re: Attn-RSG (was Re: On top of the clubhouse?)

Peter Strauss wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 06:59:27 -0700, long&left <nospam@diespammers.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Tex wrote:
>>
>>>long&left wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bobby Knight wrote:
>>>>(snip)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Don't even go there. There are players here that have 10 times that
>>>>>amount at risk two or three times a week. Big deal.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>you mean, you can bet on golf? damn! ya learn something new every day :)
>>>
>>>
>>>I'd never bet ya...your tan is too good and your hair is almost
>>>silver...
>>>
>>>Tex
>>>
>>
>>if only I had the game to go with the persona :)
>
> Or vice versa.
> :-)

I would take vice versa in a second! I don't need no stinkin' persona, I
need a GAME!

Date: 29 Aug 2006 09:12:54
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Attn-RSG (was Re: On top of the clubhouse?)

On 28 Aug 2006 20:17:55 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:

>
>long&left wrote:
>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>> (snip)
>> >
>> > Don't even go there. There are players here that have 10 times that
>> > amount at risk two or three times a week. Big deal.
>> >
>>
>> you mean, you can bet on golf? damn! ya learn something new every day :)
>
>I'd never bet ya...your tan is too good and your hair is almost
>silver...
>
>Tex

And you should see the SOB putt.........
--

jvdp
The only way to beat me is to make a hole in one
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 28 Aug 2006 11:27:03
From: Tex
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

The_Professor wrote:
> Fairway wrote:
> >
> > How sweet to see the sick, old cronies stick together. F
>
>
> Offering up these bets is a typical ruse when they don't want to play
> because they are afraid to lose. I worked in a pool hall when I was a
> teenager, and you would see this sort of thing all the time when
> someone who was all talk was ever challenged. Offer up some absurd bet;
> beats having to admit you are afraid to play just to see who's better.

Oh, so the absurd bet you offered up to challenge me was just your way
of being a chicken shit? Glad you are now honest in your admission.

BTW, when did you have time to work in a pool hall as a teenager?
Playing 300 rounds of golf /year should have consumed all your time.

Tex

Date: 28 Aug 2006 11:21:03
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Fairway wrote:
>
> How sweet to see the sick, old cronies stick together. F

Offering up these bets is a typical ruse when they don't want to play
because they are afraid to lose. I worked in a pool hall when I was a
teenager, and you would see this sort of thing all the time when
someone who was all talk was ever challenged. Offer up some absurd bet;
beats having to admit you are afraid to play just to see who's better.

Date: 28 Aug 2006 13:32:53
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On 28 Aug 2006 11:21:03 -0700, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

>
>Fairway wrote:
>>
>> How sweet to see the sick, old cronies stick together. F
>
>
>Offering up these bets is a typical ruse when they don't want to play
>because they are afraid to lose. I worked in a pool hall when I was a
>teenager, and you would see this sort of thing all the time when
>someone who was all talk was ever challenged. Offer up some absurd bet;
>beats having to admit you are afraid to play just to see who's better.

Why was I expecting this???

But Rob. You're the one doing the talking. You said that Mike
wouldn't accept your challenge, so you're describing yourself. All
I'm doing is gilving you a chance to show that you aren't the
habitual liar that I say you are.

If you are as good as you say, and would have no problem taking Mike,
this is easy money.

The fact is that you're a blowhard, and never challenged him, and
would never accept my challenge...even if it was for $0.25.
You're a blowhard.
___,
\o

Date: 27 Aug 2006 11:24:20
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Bow Tie wrote:
> The problem is in how that course is marked. Never seen a course when a
> ball on top of the clubhouse could be considered still in play and
> deserving of relief.
>

Me neither. Although I didn't see this latest situation, it sure
sounds like Tiger got favorable treatment this time. I guess when
you're the Greatest Golfer of All Time then you get those calls. Kinda
like how Michael Jordan could draw a foul just by dribbling past the
free throw line. Or like Greg Maddux who has such a great rep that any
pitch within 6 inches of the plate is called a strike. And don't get me
started on the fuckin Pittsburgh Stealers.

Date: 27 Aug 2006 23:04:38
From: rich
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1156703060.388735.129850@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bow Tie wrote:
>> The problem is in how that course is marked. Never seen a course when a
>> ball on top of the clubhouse could be considered still in play and
>> deserving of relief.
>>
>
> Me neither. Although I didn't see this latest situation, it sure
> sounds like Tiger got favorable treatment this time. I guess when
> you're the Greatest Golfer of All Time then you get those calls. Kinda
> like how Michael Jordan could draw a foul just by dribbling past the
> free throw line. Or like Greg Maddux who has such a great rep that any
> pitch within 6 inches of the plate is called a strike. And don't get me
> started on the fuckin Pittsburgh Stealers.
>
From the PGA official's press conference:

Q. Where does this fit in your list of oddball rulings?

MIKE SHEA: It's pretty unusual.

Q. Give us another one.

MIKE SHEA: Well, we've had a player that has played a shot from the top of a
clubhouse at Indian Wells one year and got the ball up and down, so it has
happened. I think it was Gary Hallberg on the 18th hole

SLUGGER WHITE: 16th hole.

MIKE SHEA: 16th hole at Indian Wells. So, I mean

SLUGGER WHITE: He didn't want to drop it so he played it.

http://www.worldgolfchampionships.com/news/story/r476/9620232

Rich

Date: 27 Aug 2006 17:34:18
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: OT: Stealers (Annika) Was Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On 27 Aug 2006 11:24:20 -0700, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:

>pitch within 6 inches of the plate is called a strike. And don't get me
>started on the fuckin Pittsburgh Stealers.

http://www.lookatmeshirts.com/index.php?productID=265&pos=1

Date: 27 Aug 2006 19:20:19
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On 27 Aug 2006 11:24:20 -0700, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:

>Me neither. Although I didn't see this latest situation, it sure
>sounds like Tiger got favorable treatment this time. I guess when
>you're the Greatest Golfer of All Time then you get those calls.

I thought when he got the gallery to move that boulder, he got the
call. And he's less likely to lose a ball with all of his fore
caddies (the gallery). But this call seems to be one that everybody
in the tour gets.

Date: 27 Aug 2006 11:15:44
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Correct me if I am wrong. The first thing in golf is the be in control
of every shot you hit. I cannot see any way to describe this shot other
than being out of control.

The other thing about a flying lie besides that you might (I said
might.) get the jumper is that you can hit it heavy and the ball only
goes 125 yds instead of 210. Too many variables. Tiger was leading the
tournament at the end of the second round. Exactly the right time for
him to take his medicine and take any number bigger than 5 out of the
equation.

My opinion. Another case where he could benefit by having me on the bag
rather than Steve Williams. I would have been saying lay-up, lay-up,
lay-up, lay-up, lay-up, lay-up, lay-up,......................Until he
told me to stop.

Thank you for having nice things to say about me and my ability.

YMMV.

Oh, Good news about Steve Centanni and that Olaf guy.

Ken

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> Bow Tie <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Hit the wrong club? No. I have seen replays of this several times. He
> > took a wild lash at it and it was also way right. I find it hilarious
> > that all these Tiger fans are so anxious to lay it off to a flyer.
>
> Hey, you know I'm not a huge Tigerphile, but even I attribute
> it to flyer + cart path bounce. Yeah, he took a hard swing at
> it, but the ball was down in the rough. There's no other good
> way to play that shot. I guess he could have done it with a
> wedge, but geez, 210 yards with a 9 iron?
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/

Date: 27 Aug 2006 10:47:41
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

The problem is in how that course is marked. Never seen a course when a
ball on top of the clubhouse could be considered still in play and
deserving of relief.

I have never said that Tiger did anything wrong other than not laying
out of his bad lie in the trees. The ruling is what it is and would
have (presumably) gone the same way for any other player.

Ken

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
annika1980 wrote:
> David wrote:
> > The boulder incident still burns my
> > ass. The ruling was not correct at that time, either.
> >
> >
> > I have heard all of the arguments that were pro-woods as this was
> > discussed in depth in RSG when it happened, so I don't need to hear
> > the arguments now.
>
> If you really did hear those arguments then you know the ruling was
> exactly correct.
> Perhaps there is something else to account for the burning in your ass?

Date: 28 Aug 2006 07:59:33
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

kenpittsjr@gmail.com wrote:
> I DO NOT HATE TIGER.
>
> Tiger was not right to play that shot,

I disagree with both of those statements. Google will easily disprove
the first one, while the second seems to be a bad case of Monday
Morning Quarterbacking. The man was hitting a 9-iron .... what the heck
is he gonna lay up with, his putter? He hits that shot close to the
green 9 times out of 10. It makes no sense to run around crying, "He
should have layed up!" every time somebody knocks a ball out of bounds
or gets a bad bounce off a cartpath. Sometimes golfers hit bad shots,
even the great Tiger Woods. His shot should make us all feel better
about our own games.

Sometimes I'll hit a tee shot OB which leads to Double Bogey or worse
and I'll think, "Way to go dumbass, you could've hit 7-iron off the tee
and scored better than that!" But that doesn't address the fact that
hitting a 7-iron off the tee would be a bad club selection. If the
hole is 300 yards long I might be able to get there with two 7-irons,
but I'd prefer a driver and a SW. If I hit driver OB on that hole it
isn't a brain fart so much as a bad shot.

Now back to your hatred of Tiger. One can only wonder why you keep
harping on his shot as a case of poor judgement instead of just a poor
shot or a bad bounce. Could it be that since your hero, Jack Nicklaus,
has a reputation as a good course manager that this is one way you can
claim superiority of Jack over Tiger?

I think a much better argument could be made on the point that Tiger
received a very favorable ruling. I was always taught that if you
can't find or identify your ball it was deemed to be lost. So if he
clubhouse was ruled in bounds, I think Tiger should have had to play it
or take the usual penalty. However, if the clubhouse is ruled to be an
obstruction then I suppose Rule 24-3 applies and he gets a drop.

Date: 28 Aug 2006 01:25:55
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Bow Tie wrote:
> I forgot more about the game than you will ever know. I have more
> rounds under par than you do under 100.

I kinda doubt that. The only thing you have more than me is probably
20 more years of golf. Your handicap may (or may not) be lower than my
1.8, but it ain't that much lower.

> Tiger and Phil - both forcing the issue when they should be playing
> safe.

If your really think that their situations are comparable, then you are
either stubborn or stupid. For your sake, I hope the former.

Date: 28 Aug 2006 22:28:19
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

The ball should have been OB when it went beyond the grandstand. Not
Tiger's fault. But, I just cannot understand why it wa not OB.

Ken'

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Peter Strauss wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 23:43:15 GMT, Colin Wilson <nowhere@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
> > larryrsf wrote:
> >
> > > Today the officials would try to guess where the ball
> > > might have landed and put it back there.
> >
> > Shows how much you know about the Rules of Golf.
> Right.
> So, I talked today with some very knowledgeable rules officials, many
> of whom have worked at USGA tournaments, and here's the picture I got
> from them:

Date: 29 Aug 2006 08:55:12
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On 28 Aug 2006 22:28:19 -0700, "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com >
wrote:

>The ball should have been OB when it went beyond the grandstand. Not
>Tiger's fault. But, I just cannot understand why it wa not OB.
>
>Ken'
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>Peter Strauss wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 23:43:15 GMT, Colin Wilson <nowhere@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > larryrsf wrote:
>> >
>> > > Today the officials would try to guess where the ball
>> > > might have landed and put it back there.
>> >
>> > Shows how much you know about the Rules of Golf.
>> Right.
>> So, I talked today with some very knowledgeable rules officials, many
>> of whom have worked at USGA tournaments, and here's the picture I got
>> from them:

Ken,

Because it wasn't defined as such by the Competition Commitee.

Personally, in a perfect world there would be no OB. I think it's
dumb to have OB on the INTERIOR of a course, especially. I can see it
on the edges where you don't want people to be playing across roads,
in people's yards, etc. But within the confines of the course
everything should be fair game.
--

jvdp
The only way to beat me is to make a hole in one
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 29 Aug 2006 05:53:50
From: Colin Wilson
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Bow Tie wrote:

> The ball should have been OB when it went beyond the grandstand. Not
> Tiger's fault. But, I just cannot understand why it wa not OB.

Under the Definitions, out of bounds is that part of the course beyond
the boundaries marked by the Committee. Other than the actual course
boundary, if it's not marked, I would have thought it's not OOB.

--
Cheers
Colin Wilson
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com
Barnbougle Dunes: http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/barnbougle
------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Aug 2006 20:45:46
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Fine. You're a golf genius. So are Randy and "I kill the ball" whatever
his name is. I'm a dunderhead. I only beat you once by four continuous
hours of pure luck. Things were set right when I was forced into
another putt off.

Regardless of what you think, I do not hate Tiger. I don't like what he
does sometimes. Big difference. But, go on believing that I hate him.
I'm sure you'll feel better for it.

Best regards anyway.
Ken

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
annika1980 wrote:
> kenpittsjr@gmail.com wrote:
> > I DO NOT HATE TIGER.
> >
> > Tiger was not right to play that shot,
>
> I disagree with both of those statements. Google will easily disprove
> the first one, while the second seems to be a bad case of Monday
> Morning Quarterbacking. The man was hitting a 9-iron .... what the heck
> is he gonna lay up with, his putter? He hits that shot close to the
> green 9 times out of 10. It makes no sense to run around crying, "He
> should have layed up!" every time somebody knocks a ball out of bounds
> or gets a bad bounce off a cartpath. Sometimes golfers hit bad shots,
> even the great Tiger Woods. His shot should make us all feel better
> about our own games.
>
> Sometimes I'll hit a tee shot OB which leads to Double Bogey or worse
> and I'll think, "Way to go dumbass, you could've hit 7-iron off the tee
> and scored better than that!" But that doesn't address the fact that
> hitting a 7-iron off the tee would be a bad club selection. If the
> hole is 300 yards long I might be able to get there with two 7-irons,
> but I'd prefer a driver and a SW. If I hit driver OB on that hole it
> isn't a brain fart so much as a bad shot.
>
> Now back to your hatred of Tiger. One can only wonder why you keep
> harping on his shot as a case of poor judgement instead of just a poor
> shot or a bad bounce. Could it be that since your hero, Jack Nicklaus,
> has a reputation as a good course manager that this is one way you can
> claim superiority of Jack over Tiger?
>
> I think a much better argument could be made on the point that Tiger
> received a very favorable ruling. I was always taught that if you
> can't find or identify your ball it was deemed to be lost. So if he
> clubhouse was ruled in bounds, I think Tiger should have had to play it
> or take the usual penalty. However, if the clubhouse is ruled to be an
> obstruction then I suppose Rule 24-3 applies and he gets a drop.

Date: 29 Aug 2006 16:03:36
From: Sparky
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On 28-Aug-2006, "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com > wrote:

> Fine. You're a golf genius. So are Randy and "I kill the ball" whatever
> his name is. I'm a dunderhead. I only beat you once by four continuous
> hours of pure luck. Things were set right when I was forced into
> another putt off.
>
> Regardless of what you think, I do not hate Tiger. I don't like what he
> does sometimes. Big difference. But, go on believing that I hate him.
> I'm sure you'll feel better for it.
>
> Best regards anyway.
> Ken

Somebody call me??

me <-----Kills the ball

Date: 28 Aug 2006 19:53:35
From: dsc
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Bow Tie wrote:
> I've never played a course where the clubhouse is not out of bounds.
> Tiger even admits that in the press conference. At my old club, even
> the halfway house was OB. He should have been hitting four from where
> his tee shot ended up. Clearly a poor decision and ultimately was lucky
> to make bogey. First poor decision since before the Open Championship.
>
> Ken

The little country course where I learned to play doesn't mark the club
house or parking lot as ob. I've played from the porch and the lot
(correctly or incorrecty... I'm not sure?)

Date: 28 Aug 2006 16:24:05
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

larryrsf wrote:
> I have read that Palmer in his prime got much more flagrant favorable
> treatment from the officials and from the crowd. When his ball flew
> into the crowd it would "magically" end up in the middle of the fairway
> or green, etc. His ball would just pop out and NOBODY would betray
> 'The King." Today the officials would try to guess where the ball
> might have landed and put it back there.

Sigh. This world belongs to the beautiful, rich and famous. Another
sigh. F

Date: 28 Aug 2006 16:19:57
From: larryrsf
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Fairway wrote:
> multi wrote:
> > Agreed, but what I was wondering the entire 45 minutes was why he
> > didn't immediately hit a provisional ball, especially since he said
> > later that he assumed it was OOB, and his group was already on the
> > clock. And the answer I keep coming up with is that he didn't want to
> > make it any easier for the officials to rule his ball OOB.
>
> One can only wonder if ordinary blokes like you and me would have been
> treated so generously. I fear not. This looked like VIP treatment, I=B4m
> sad to say. Reminds one of the incident with Tiger and the huge
> boulder. Would we have got away with that? I don=B4t think so. F

I have read that Palmer in his prime got much more flagrant favorable
treatment from the officials and from the crowd. When his ball flew
into the crowd it would "magically" end up in the middle of the fairway
or green, etc. His ball would just pop out and NOBODY would betray
'The King." Today the officials would try to guess where the ball
might have landed and put it back there.=20

Larry

Date: 28 Aug 2006 23:43:15
From: Colin Wilson
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

larryrsf wrote:

> Today the officials would try to guess where the ball
> might have landed and put it back there.

Shows how much you know about the Rules of Golf.

--
Cheers
Colin Wilson
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com
Barnbougle Dunes: http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/barnbougle
------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Aug 2006 05:22:52
From: Peter Strauss
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 23:43:15 GMT, Colin Wilson <nowhere@nospam.com >
wrote:

> larryrsf wrote:
>
> > Today the officials would try to guess where the ball
> > might have landed and put it back there.
>
> Shows how much you know about the Rules of Golf.
Right.
So, I talked today with some very knowledgeable rules officials, many
of whom have worked at USGA tournaments, and here's the picture I got
from them:

The ball bounced on the cartpath BEHIND the TIO/Grandstand, and then
went up on the roof and dropped in BACK of the clubhouse. It was, in
fact, determined that a person in the rear of the clubhouse had moved
the ball (in this case, by pocketing it).
That being so, the ball was not lost in/on the obstruction (the
clubhouse) and so the distance from the REAR of the clubhouse, where
the individual had grabbed the ball, to the flagstick had to be
determined, which it was.
Then, moving on an arc, and maintaining that distance, a place was
found at which the ball could be dropped, which was the Nearest Point
of Relief (NPR). That was about 80 or so yards from the flagstick.
Then, once that was accomplished, the player was entitled to relief
from the TIO/Grandstand, and that relief was granted.

Had the ball not been located, then the NPR would have been determined
by measuring from the point at which the ball entered into the
obstruction, in this case in FRONT of the clubhouse. Then, again,
relief from the TIO would have been granted, and he would have been
much closer to the flagstick (by about 30 or more yards, I believe)
when all that was finished.
My yardage numbers might be off, but the essential points of the
action are not, as far as I know.

In sum: he lost valuable yardage when the ball was "found". That
part of the scenario did not benefit him at all -- just the reverse.

My 2�.

Peter

Date: 29 Aug 2006 01:11:41
From: multi
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 05:22:52 GMT, Peter Strauss <pfs126@earthlink.net >
wrote:
>In sum: he lost valuable yardage when the ball was "found". That
>part of the scenario did not benefit him at all -- just the reverse.

Similar to the situation at the PGA, when Tiger yanked a drive, and a
fan batted the ball down. Everybody screamed that only Tiger would
get a break like that. Yet when Frank Nabilo went to the spot and
examined the tape, he found that had the fan not hit the ball, Tiger
could have gone for the green, instead of having to punch out.

Of course, if Tiger had gone for the green, we'd have to endure
another 200 posts from Pitts about how he has forgotten more about
golf than Tiger ever knew.

Date: 29 Aug 2006 05:52:36
From: Colin Wilson
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Peter Strauss wrote:

>>> Today the officials would try to guess where the ball
>>> might have landed and put it back there.

>> Shows how much you know about the Rules of Golf.

> Right.
> So, I talked today with some very knowledgeable rules officials, many
> of whom have worked at USGA tournaments, and here's the picture I got
> from them:

Good explanation, but I was referring to Larry's Arnold Palmer "bouncing
off the spectator" anecdote.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of the Rules would know the definitions of
"Outside Agency" and "Rub of the Green".

While a ball at rest moved by an outside agency is replaced, a *moving*
ball that hits an Outside Agency (i.e. a spectator) is Rub of the Green,
and played from where it lies. There can be no guesswork from officials
about where the ball "might have landed".

--
Cheers
Colin Wilson
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com
Barnbougle Dunes: http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/barnbougle
------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Aug 2006 01:13:26
From: multi
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 05:52:36 GMT, Colin Wilson <nowhere@nospam.com >
wrote:
>While a ball at rest moved by an outside agency is replaced, a *moving*
>ball that hits an Outside Agency (i.e. a spectator) is Rub of the Green,
>and played from where it lies. There can be no guesswork from officials
>about where the ball "might have landed".

Correct, unless it is determined that the spectator hit the ball
deliberately.

Date: 28 Aug 2006 13:56:40
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

rich wrote:
> If MIke is a hack compared to Ken, doesn't that mean that Ken is a hack
> compared to Tiger? And doesn't that mean, by the standard Ken applies
> between himself and Mike, that in every aspect of human existence Tiger is
> superior to Ken? Including shot selection?

Tiger has forgotten more about golf than Ken ever knew.
And I've forgotten more about golf than Tiger has forgotten.
So what does that tell you about me and Ken?
I forget.

Date: 28 Aug 2006 16:04:33
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On 28 Aug 2006 13:56:40 -0700, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:

>
>rich wrote:
>> If MIke is a hack compared to Ken, doesn't that mean that Ken is a hack
>> compared to Tiger? And doesn't that mean, by the standard Ken applies
>> between himself and Mike, that in every aspect of human existence Tiger is
>> superior to Ken? Including shot selection?
>
>Tiger has forgotten more about golf than Ken ever knew.
>And I've forgotten more about golf than Tiger has forgotten.
>So what does that tell you about me and Ken?
>I forget.

I remember.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Wait, I forgot too.
___,
\o

Date: 28 Aug 2006 17:03:30
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

On 28 Aug 2006 13:56:40 -0700, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:

>
>rich wrote:
>> If MIke is a hack compared to Ken, doesn't that mean that Ken is a hack
>> compared to Tiger? And doesn't that mean, by the standard Ken applies
>> between himself and Mike, that in every aspect of human existence Tiger is
>> superior to Ken? Including shot selection?
>
>Tiger has forgotten more about golf than Ken ever knew.

I doubt Tiger has forgotten much, if anything, about golf.
--

jvdp
The only way to beat me is to make a hole in one
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 28 Aug 2006 13:37:35
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

marti...@umn.edu wrote:

snippit...

Getting a little trollish here aren't you?

I certainly don't care about a dozen or so paranoid schizophenrics. I
just don't bother with them and move on. This is an open forum, and as
such free for use by anyone. If you don't like what I post, don't read
my posts.

Date: 28 Aug 2006 13:28:09
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

marti...@umn.edu wrote:
>
> And your ability to beat anyone at golf is meaningless to the validity
> of your or anyone's opinion, whether about golf or anything else. The
> argument to authority is meaningless. You should know this.
>

I'm not making an arguement to authority. I have actually wanted to
play. The words are meaningless. I have played several people on this
board in such challenges. Won soime, lost some. It's no big deal.

Date: 28 Aug 2006 11:27:18
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

annika1980 wrote:
[snip]
> I think a much better argument could be made on the point that Tiger
> received a very favorable ruling. I was always taught that if you
> can't find or identify your ball it was deemed to be lost. So if he
> clubhouse was ruled in bounds, I think Tiger should have had to play it
> or take the usual penalty. However, if the clubhouse is ruled to be an
> obstruction then I suppose Rule 24-3 applies and he gets a drop.

I've read alot of the comments here, but everyone seems to be
missing the key part of the overall ruling. The key feature that
guided
the rest of the decision was the TEMPORARY immovable obstruction.
That was the grandstands. Players are given free relief from them.
So by most scenarios, regardless of what rules were going to be
applied,
Tiger was going to receive relief so that is how they proceeded.

Now, the one area that could have gotten him in trouble was
lost ball. What I heard was that a presumption that an outside agency
had moved the ball. It seemed to me that Tiger was in danger of
of a lost ball on a variety of basis. 1) He took forever to move
forward
and search for it so I don't know when the clock started. 2) The
TV guys could only track it to the roof, after that no one really knew
where it went. Sounds "lost" to me. 3) By the time the whole
"cook found his ball" it seemed well past the 5 minutes. They seemed
to have decided that his ball was "lost in an immovable obstruction"
which seemed to make them decide that he didn't have to find it.
Except for a comment made which said that they assumed it
having been moved by an outside agency.

But nears as I can tell, next time they hold a tournament, that
areas gonna be OB.

Date: 28 Aug 2006 20:34:33
From: rich
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com > wrote in message
news:1156789638.184815.26360@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> annika1980 wrote:
> [snip]
> Now, the one area that could have gotten him in trouble was
> lost ball. What I heard was that a presumption that an outside agency
> had moved the ball. It seemed to me that Tiger was in danger of
> of a lost ball on a variety of basis. 1) He took forever to move
> forward
> and search for it so I don't know when the clock started. 2) The
> TV guys could only track it to the roof, after that no one really knew
> where it went. Sounds "lost" to me. 3) By the time the whole
> "cook found his ball" it seemed well past the 5 minutes. They seemed
> to have decided that his ball was "lost in an immovable obstruction"
> which seemed to make them decide that he didn't have to find it.
> Except for a comment made which said that they assumed it
> having been moved by an outside agency.

No, if the ball was never found it would have been ruled lost in an
obstruction and there would have been no lost ball penalty. And Tiger would
have gotten a better drop. The deemed finding of the ball hurt Tiger.

The TV guys were not the exclusive means of finding the ball. The PGA had
officials our and about.

Also the only testimony on record regarding the 5 minutes is that it was
deemed found before the 5 minutes was up. The fact that we couldn't hear
what was being said on the radios and didn't know what was going on until
after the fact is irrelevant. So unless you are going to drink the Kool-Aid
and join the conspiracy theory people we have to go with what the PGA
officials said. Plus, as I said, the deemed finding of the ball hurt Tiger
as far as the place he got relief was concerned.

> But nears as I can tell, next time they hold a tournament, that
> areas gonna be OB.

Nope, the PGA has already addressed this in the interview and said it is
doubtful they will change the markings.

Rich

Date: 29 Aug 2006 08:42:19
From: newellsatwsu
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Mike Dalecki wrote:
> Hopeless hack? If true, would this somehow invalidate the arguments
> I've offered? Of course not.
>
> And that aside, what does my golf skill have to do with this argument at
> all? Will Brad (glfnaz) have a better opinion just because he's a
> better golfer than I am? Of course not--though he seems to have pegged
> you pretty well.

It's the same debate structure that Dene/Hammer/LLLarry like to use
also. "I don't have any ammunition left concerning the actual debate
topic, so I'll criticize of your income and your golf game and your
grammar."...yeah, that works and really proves your point.

> Finally, I don't know how you define "hopeless hack" but you might find
> something of interest here; it's my index:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/m8d2u

And where is Ken's official handicap to validate his judgement? Surely
someone who is able to call someone a hack has a higher standard of
excellence to make such a criticism.

> And FWIW, II, I play in a league on Tuesday nights; my team leads the
> league with a 14 point lead with one week to play (20 points contested
> each week). My 9-hole index in that league is 2.

How often has Ken been playing to validate his handicap index of
judgement?

Date: 29 Aug 2006 11:02:49
From: Ares Gee
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

"newellsatwsu" <newellatwsu@adelphia.net > writes:

> How often has Ken been playing to validate his handicap index of
> judgement?

Nice turn of phrase, Mr. Newell. Very nice.

"Stand down, you cad, or I shall unleash
my handicap index of judgement."

--

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. Aress Gee
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: 29 Aug 2006 06:32:47
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

Bow Tie wrote:
> Fine. You're a golf genius. So are Randy and "I kill the ball" whatever
> his name is. I'm a dunderhead. I only beat you once by four continuous
> hours of pure luck. Things were set right when I was forced into
> another putt off.

So you shot a 71 one time, big whoop. What did it get ya?
I've never questioned your golf ability. But you were right about one
thing; you did beat me .... once. I've beaten you every other time
we've played, including the famous $100 match at RSG-ATL. How'd that
work out for ya, Uncle Jess? To be fair, we actually tied in the
official tunamint round at the first RSG-ATL and I won the playoff.
Got the Coveted Peach Jacket to prove it.

But this isn't about us. It's about why you get to freely question
something that Tiger does while anytime someone questions you, you call
them a "hack." Well to Tiger, you and I are the biggest hacks he's
ever seen, although I did tie him one day (we both shot 68) when he was
just 15.

http://tinyurl.com/qsfoe

Date: 30 Aug 2006 05:58:41
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

zumafan wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
>
> > pitch within 6 inches of the plate is called a strike. And don't get me
> > started on the fuckin Pittsburgh Stealers.
>
> Go ahead and start. What is it about the world champs that's on your
> mind?

Have the referees been awarded their Stealer Super Bowl rings yet?

Date: 30 Aug 2006 03:24:10
From: zumafan
Subject: Re: On top of the clubhouse?

annika1980 wrote:

> pitch within 6 inches of the plate is called a strike. And don't get me
> started on the fuckin Pittsburgh Stealers.

Go ahead and start. What is it about the world champs that's on your
mind?