We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Slow Play Suggestions

Yeah. I was trying to cool it down a bit, probably a bad call.


Yeah, I know you aint bein a jerk.
Bridges said:
Im guessing you didnt read all of it? no one else said what they thought was a serious golfer, just wanting to know JP's defenition for some of the things he has said in other posts.

You know im not being a jerk to you, but this thread is pretty "heated" so make sure you read everything first lol
Click to expand...
 
Bridges said:
Did he say regular golfers? no.

We want to know what he defines as a serious golfer in his opinion? What do they have to do to be considered a serious golfer.

Obviously you cant ride in cart to be a serious golfer. So he says.
Click to expand...

I know he didn't say regular golfers. That's why I said "if" he had said regular golfers.

As to your last line, that's precisely what he didn't say. He went to great lengths to explain that that's not what he said. He said that it was *MORE LIKELY* that someone walking would be a serious golfer than someone riding. That does not in any way shape or form suggest that riders are not serious golfers. Nor does it mean that walkers are serious golfers. His point was merely that yahoos tend to ride. But it's not a two way street. If there are a thousand golfers at your club. 990 of them are serious golfers. 10 of them are not. 500 ride and 500 walk. JP's comment is the chances are those 10 will ride, so let's suppose 9 of them ride and 1 walks. Then if you see a random golfer at that club and they ride, then the chances they are a serious golfer is around 491/500. If they walk, then the chances are 499/500. That means that if you see someone walking they are more likely to be a serious golfer than a non-serious golfer. Specifically by 99.8% against 98.2%. Saying that is not making any comment on the remaining 491 guys who are serious golfers and ride.

Now, JP's definition of "serious golfers" might include only 900 of the thousand, not 990. In which case, so long as those 100 "not-serious" golfers are more likely to ride than walk, then the math still holds and what he said is still true, while again not making any comment on the other 900 guys who are serious golfers.

The reason that the assertion that non-serious golfers are more likely to ride than walk is most likely true is because it's harder to walk than to ride. So people who don't take it seriously aren't likely to put in the extra effort of walking, because why would they bother?

See? It's not difficult and it's not insulting to people who ride. I cannot understand why people think that it is.
 
Ty_Webb said:
===== QUOTE Bridges ====

Did he say regular golfers? no.

We want to know what he defines as a serious golfer in his opinion? What do they have to do to be considered a serious golfer.

Obviously you cant ride in cart to be a serious golfer. So he says.

===== /QUOTE ====



I know he didn't say regular golfers. That's why I said "if" he had said regular golfers.

As to your last line, that's precisely what he didn't say. He went to great lengths to explain that that's not what he said. He said that it was *MORE LIKELY* that someone walking would be a serious golfer than someone riding. That does not in any way shape or form suggest that riders are not serious golfers. Nor does it mean that walkers are serious golfers. His point was merely that yahoos tend to ride. But it's not a two way street. If there are a thousand golfers at your club. 990 of them are serious golfers. 10 of them are not. 500 ride and 500 walk. JP's comment is the chances are those 10 will ride, so let's suppose 9 of them ride and 1 walks. Then if you see a random golfer at that club and they ride, then the chances they are a serious golfer is around 491/500. If they walk, then the chances are 499/500. That means that if you see someone walking they are more likely to be a serious golfer than a non-serious golfer. Specifically by 99.8% against 98.2%. Saying that is not making any comment on the remaining 491 guys who are serious golfers and ride.

Now, JP's definition of "serious golfers" might include only 900 of the thousand, not 990. In which case, so long as those 100 "not-serious" golfers are more likely to ride than walk, then the math still holds and what he said is still true, while again not making any comment on the other 900 guys who are serious golfers.

The reason that the assertion that non-serious golfers are more likely to ride than walk is most likely true is because it's harder to walk than to ride. So people who don't take it seriously aren't likely to put in the extra effort of walking, because why would they bother?

See? It's not difficult and it's not insulting to people who ride. I cannot understand why people think that it is.
Click to expand...

Ty,
You are right about what he said. But for 10 pages now he has been talking about "serious golfers" and all that has been asked is what does that mean to him. Yet he has continued to ignore it and its not a real hard question. Gone as far as to insult on one of the posts that we were clearly missing it.

Every single person here seemed to be misunderstanding him and yet all he had to do was answer one question asked by many and chose and has continued to choose not to. Obviously that is his choice, but you wonder why people think the way they do? This is why!!!!



Posted from my BlackBerry using BerryBlab
 
Ty_Webb said:
I know he didn't say regular golfers. That's why I said "if" he had said regular golfers.

As to your last line, that's precisely what he didn't say. He went to great lengths to explain that that's not what he said. He said that it was *MORE LIKELY* that someone walking would be a serious golfer than someone riding. That does not in any way shape or form suggest that riders are not serious golfers. Nor does it mean that walkers are serious golfers. His point was merely that yahoos tend to ride. But it's not a two way street. If there are a thousand golfers at your club. 990 of them are serious golfers. 10 of them are not. 500 ride and 500 walk. JP's comment is the chances are those 10 will ride, so let's suppose 9 of them ride and 1 walks. Then if you see a random golfer at that club and they ride, then the chances they are a serious golfer is around 491/500. If they walk, then the chances are 499/500. That means that if you see someone walking they are more likely to be a serious golfer than a non-serious golfer. Specifically by 99.8% against 98.2%. Saying that is not making any comment on the remaining 491 guys who are serious golfers and ride.

Now, JP's definition of "serious golfers" might include only 900 of the thousand, not 990. In which case, so long as those 100 "not-serious" golfers are more likely to ride than walk, then the math still holds and what he said is still true, while again not making any comment on the other 900 guys who are serious golfers.

The reason that the assertion that non-serious golfers are more likely to ride than walk is most likely true is because it's harder to walk than to ride. So people who don't take it seriously aren't likely to put in the extra effort of walking, because why would they bother?

See? It's not difficult and it's not insulting to people who ride. I cannot understand why people think that it is.
Click to expand...
Im not looking for your answer, We want his answer.

not trying to be a jerk at all.
 
tcalloway1 said:
i'm sorry but i was raised to have the attitude and mentality of not judging a book by its cover, so to speak. i have a bunch of tattoos, but have a college degree, have a job in corporate america, am a great father and partner to my lady, pay my taxes, ride in golf carts (b/c quite frankly most of the courses around here are impossible to walk), play GI irons, love golf, take my game seriously, and happen to be a low single digit handicapper.

how hard is it to just be honest and to just answer a question? at this point i'm inclined to believe that JP just feels as though his stance and his views on what "defines a serious golfer" will never be fully understood. i say this b/c he hasn't really helped me understand what his definition is. i'm just trying to figure all of this out more than anything. maybe i am seriously missing something, but for the life of me i can't find the answer in any of JP's posts or in ty's.......i have an idea of what you have both said about a lot of things here, but my simple question of what defines a serious golfer has yet to be answered......sorry.
Click to expand...

Just want to clarify, I don't think any less of someone for having tattoos (I might do if the tattoo in question was a swastika), but I might think differently. I would also add that I would not be stuck with my original impression, so subsequently once I get to know more about someone I would take them on their merits. It's virtually impossible though not to have an instant reaction to someone. Even if that reaction is "wow, that's a lot of tattoos".

On the second bit, here was what I said: my definition of a serious golfer would be one who cares most about his or her score. A not serious golfer would be someone who is out there for some other reason such as a company day or to have a beer or to hang with his friends, where the golf is something that happens to go on as well. I would go so far as to say there are no non-serious golfers on this site or any other golf forum.

I seriously doubt that there's a cutoff point somewhere where someone goes from "serious" to "not-serious". There will be shades of grey in there. I also think it's not trivial to articulate what makes one person more serious than another. It's nothing to do with handicap. A guy I know is a scratch/+1 golfer and has been for years. He plays maybe 12 rounds a year, if that. He just happens to shoot in the high 60s, low 70s when he does. I don't think of him as a particularly serious golfer though. He simply doesn't take it that seriously. Conversely I know people who can't break 100 who are out there playing twice on the weekends and occasionally during the week. They read up in the golf magazines and they take lessons and they work at it. They're just not as good. They're a lot more serious than that other guy though. I would imagine that JP would group both of those people in the serious golfer bracket though.
 
One of the guys that came into the thread late made a comment that I do think has some relevance to the walk/ride discussion. I do think some of the folks that like to walk including myself are somewhat concerned that ultimately there will be more and more courses that do not allow walking under any circumstances as a means of enhancing their revenue potential.

As I had mentioned earlier I would hope that someday we would have more of a mix of walk/ride courses, walk only courses and ride only courses with each offering features and amenities that were complimentary to each format. If Golf as a business activity simply cannot support all three formats then I would favor walk only and ride only courses as a means of offering the highest degree of diversity hoping that it would ultimately translate into adding to the numbers of golfers and the numbers of rounds played. I do think using some imagination in how courses are used and what features they offer is one key to getting the numbers of golfers and numbers of rounds played turned around and headed back in the right direction. Courses with lights allowing for night play might be a great idea for some parts of the country. If the numbers keep going the wrong way in this country and the Golf business does nothing that successfully gets that turned around then the likelihood is even greater that all of us will be facing less diversity with regard to what is offered to us.

One possible scenario would have courses that change to ride only courses become a catalyst that results in more courses becoming walk only courses with each format also offering additional features and amenities that are complimentary and that cater to each type. However if it does go that way, the initial phase of such a process could be a scary time for those of us that like to walk the course.
 
JB said:
Ty,
You are right about what he said. But for 10 pages now he has been talking about "serious golfers" and all that has been asked is what does that mean to him. Yet he has continued to ignore it and its not a real hard question. Gone as far as to insult on one of the posts that we were clearly missing it.

Every single person here seemed to be misunderstanding him and yet all he had to do was answer one question asked by many and chose and has continued to choose not to. Obviously that is his choice, but you wonder why people think the way they do? This is why!!!!



Posted from my BlackBerry using BerryBlab
Click to expand...

What I think happened is that people misunderstood what JP said and took offense because they ride and thought JP said that they were therefore not serious golfers. If I thought that's what he'd said, then I would probably have been a little affronted too and would have been asking him what he meant, which was really saying "why do you think I'm not a serious golfer?" What I'm trying to do now is explain to everyone that it really doesn't matter a jot what he means by serious golfer. I'd say that there's a good chance he probably doesn't know himself, which I imagine is why he hasn't answered it. Unfortunately everyone's got so fixated on one little piece of what is basically just trivia that they can't get past what they thought in the first place, which is the "why aren't I a serious golfer?" No one needs to think that though and if they realised that, I'm sure they would cease to care what JP means by it.

And I don't think it's been like "I wonder what JP means by serious golfer". I think it's been much more like circling wagons and waiting for some other reason to pounce on him. That's my take on it for what it's worth. I don't think it's particularly edifying, which is why I try to deflate it.
 
jnug said:
One of the guys that came into the thread late made a comment that I do think has some relevance to the walk/ride discussion. I do think some of the folks that like to walk including myself are somewhat concerned that ultimately there will be more and more courses that do not allow walking under any circumstances as a means of enhancing their revenue potential.
Click to expand...

That was a good point, yet the author of that post stated he wears golf sandals. So the impact was greatly diminished. I'm pretty sure serious golfers don't wear golf sandals.

Kevin
 
then wouldnt it be very easy if JP would just humor all of us and explain his version of a serious golfer????
 
Esox said:
That was a good point, yet the author of that post stated he wears golf sandals. So the impact was greatly diminished. I'm pretty sure serious golfers don't wear golf sandals.

Kevin
Click to expand...

:stickbeat:

Yeah, that was me. If you're going to play serious golf and walk in heat index over 105 then every bit of exposed skin counts. Don't make me post pics of my foot tanlines.
 
lol now you have to post pics of your feet madmike! :act-up:
 
madmike said:
:stickbeat:

Yeah, that was me. If you're going to play serious golf and walk in heat index over 105 then every bit of exposed skin counts. Don't make me post pics of my foot tanlines.
Click to expand...

lmao man...
Heck, I practice in house shoes.
 
JB said:
But I agree that it is a personal preference and a personal choice and like the points you made. I have a question for you in regards to your choice of play. If the choice is made for you, will you continue to play and ride, or will you stop playing? Or if courses around you were nice and they were cart only would you not play them?
Click to expand...

If walking wasn't an option at all, I'd probably adapt- just as you would if all the courses around you were walking only. Would probably have to buy a rangefinder pretty quick. Also would have to learn a whole new set of course manners to deal with for playing ready golf where I can't just walk up to my ball, survey the situation, choose a club from the bag, and hit away... without worrying about where my partners are and if I need to drop them off or have them drop me off at my ball.

But really not looking forward to the day when I'm not welcome to play the course the way I grew up playing it.

As for sandals... figured that would get a laugh. Seriously though, they're wicked comfortable in hot or wet weather and I can just hose them off when I'm done to clean them. Started wearing them in California playing in the summer on Bay Area Delta courses where it gets up to 100F in the summer (but it's a dry heat) and never looked back.

But I'm fine if someone thinks I'm not a serious golfer because I've got sandals on. Or because I've got 3 hybrids and super super GI clubs in the bag (Adams A3OS). :smile:
 
That was a good point, yet the author of that post stated he wears golf sandals. So the impact was greatly diminished. I'm pretty sure serious golfers don't wear golf sandals.

Kevin
Click to expand...

Your tongue may well be firmly lodged in your cheek in this case Kev. If it is not, the jury may not be in on golfing sandals. Is it Puma or Adidas or both that make a big deal out of getting closer to the ground etc etc? Anyway regardless of where they fall in the seriousness debate, I would not be surprised to find some sandal wearing golfers that can kick my butt up one side of the course and down the other.

Besides, do you really want to raise the ire of the Umbrage Taking Sandal Wearing Serious Golfers Association of America, the UTSWSGAA?
 
Ty_Webb said:
What I think happened is that people misunderstood what JP said and took offense because they ride and thought JP said that they were therefore not serious golfers. If I thought that's what he'd said, then I would probably have been a little affronted too and would have been asking him what he meant, which was really saying "why do you think I'm not a serious golfer?" What I'm trying to do now is explain to everyone that it really doesn't matter a jot what he means by serious golfer. I'd say that there's a good chance he probably doesn't know himself, which I imagine is why he hasn't answered it. Unfortunately everyone's got so fixated on one little piece of what is basically just trivia that they can't get past what they thought in the first place, which is the "why aren't I a serious golfer?" No one needs to think that though and if they realised that, I'm sure they would cease to care what JP means by it.

And I don't think it's been like "I wonder what JP means by serious golfer". I think it's been much more like circling wagons and waiting for some other reason to pounce on him. That's my take on it for what it's worth. I don't think it's particularly edifying, which is why I try to deflate it.
Click to expand...

Im sorry Ty, but I greatly disagree. We have had someone speak of "serious golfers" for 10 pages now. From the minute it was brought up, people have asked what "serious golfers" meant. Yet we had no answer. It was asked again, no answer, then it was asked by more people and we got "I think the others are smart enough to infer". Sorry, many just do not accept that from a "debate and forum" standpoint.

It goes back to the people that come online and say "this sucks", well tell us why and maybe people would understand. While its clear JPs original intent was to compare one party or group to the other and talk of a small segment or group, I find it odd that every single person reading it was confused and all seemed to want the same answer to the same question. Esox asked on multiple occasions, so did I, Sunday Hacker did, TC did, bridges, aggro, they all just wanted to know what he meant by "serious golfer".

Lets not forget nobody else brought up serious golfer. It was brought up by him in trying to explain his thought behind it. Im not sure why this is so hard to understand in that aspect.
 
are there reviews on golf sandals?
being a surfer this intrigues me greatly... id wear them everytime my ball went into a trap... would remind me of the beach

IMO
as for being a serious player... everyones definition of a serious player varies greatly...
and its usually whoever is at your level or much better... anybody below your level cant be as serious as you are...
its also about perspective... i have friends that never play and they can go out and shoot low 80s (at first glance you'd think they were serious)
other friends play daily and golf is like crack to them but cant break 100 (at first glance these guys cant be serious)
 
JB said:
Im sorry Ty, but I greatly disagree. We have had someone speak of "serious golfers" for 10 pages now. From the minute it was brought up, people have asked what "serious golfers" meant. Yet we had no answer. It was asked again, no answer, then it was asked by more people and we got "I think the others are smart enough to infer". Sorry, many just do not accept that from a "debate and forum" standpoint.

It goes back to the people that come online and say "this sucks", well tell us why and maybe people would understand. While its clear JPs original intent was to compare one party or group to the other and talk of a small segment or group, I find it odd that every single person reading it was confused and all seemed to want the same answer to the same question. Esox asked on multiple occasions, so did I, Sunday Hacker did, TC did, bridges, aggro, they all just wanted to know what he meant by "serious golfer".

Lets not forget nobody else brought up serious golfer. It was brought up by him in trying to explain his thought behind it. Im not sure why this is so hard to understand in that aspect.
Click to expand...

Not every single person reading it was confused. I wasn't. It was perfectly clear to me what he wrote. But then again, I guess I read it not looking for holes to pick.

And I do understand why people are so desperate to find out what he means by serious golfer. I believe I stated that in one of my earlier posts. One thing I will say again is if you ask it in a nice way, you might get an answer. Why not discuss what you think serious golfer might mean and see if he pipes up then? Rather than rounding on him and ganging up on him. It's like being in the playground at school again.

But allow me to do to your post what you did to him.

What do you mean by sorry? You've said it twice, so clearly it must be important to you. Why do you keep saying you're sorry? What do you have to be sorry for?

Back to the topic at hand though, why do you care what his definition of serious golfer is? What is so important about it? Please tell me (and stop apologising :) )
 
i think it would put things in perspective
since everyones definition of a serious golfer varies
if the poster thought a serious golfer was only ppl that walked and no rider on the planet could possibly be serious... then it would put things in perspective
if maybe a certain hcp would constitute serious... then arguments would ensue about riders vs walkers hcps
if total time playing/practicing... etc etc
his definition of serious might be extremely different than yours even tho his point of view might be similar
 
bogey_russ said:
i think it would put things in perspective
since everyones definition of a serious golfer varies
if the poster thought a serious golfer was only ppl that walked and no rider on the planet could possibly be serious... then it would put things in perspective
if maybe a certain hcp would constitute serious... then arguments would ensue about riders vs walkers hcps
if total time playing/practicing... etc etc
his definition of serious might be extremely different than yours even tho his point of view might be similar
Click to expand...

He said it was basically the same as mine
 
Ty_Webb said:
He said it was basically the same as mine
Click to expand...

You bailed him out. You saved his bacon. You mowed his lawn. Considering his posting history across this forum I suspect JP's definition of "serious golfer" had to do with skill level, the equipment they played, etc. To him, "serious" players understand the "soul" of the game, and no way in hell is some fat 25 'cap cart rider playing an Adams hybrid mix as "serious" golfer. Even if the guy is out there working his ass off to get the 25 'cap to 24.

I was the first to ask for a definition. Considering the number of posts between my first asking and now, any response would be worthless. Now he can come on and say, "You must be a mind reader", "Don't put words in my mouth", etc.

JP seems like the kind of guy that when you beat him on the course would say, "well, I lost, but the other guy was riding in a cart and playing shovels."

I'd love to be that guy.

Kevin
 
Esox said:
You bailed him out. You saved his bacon. You mowed his lawn. Considering his posting history across this forum I suspect JP's definition of "serious golfer" had to do with skill level, the equipment they played, etc. To him, "serious" players understand the "soul" of the game, and no way in hell is some fat 25 'cap cart rider playing an Adams hybrid mix as "serious" golfer. Even if the guy is out there working his ass off to get the 25 'cap to 24.

I was the first to ask for a definition. Considering the number of posts between my first asking and now, any response would be worthless. Now he can come on and say, "You must be a mind reader", "Don't put words in my mouth", etc.

JP seems like the kind of guy that when you beat him on the course would say, "well, I lost, but the other guy was riding in a cart and playing shovels."

I'd love to be that guy.

Kevin
Click to expand...

i think this pretty much sums up a lot of the perspective of where a lot of us are coming from with our questions.
 
JPsuff said:
Good questions.

I suppose that there are a variety of reasons from real (revenue) to perceived (faster play) to convenience as well as an alternative to walking for those who don't wish to or can't walk 18 holes.

One of the things about mandatory cart courses that I've noticed is that in order to reduce wear to the course itself so that cart costs to them are lessened is to grow the fairways longer and of course the drawback to a good golfer is the lack of a true "fairway lie". But I think the reasoning on the part of the courses is that most weekend golfers don't really care for tight lies so growing the fairways longer actually is a win-win for the course because they can make some extra money from cart rentals without incurring a large amount of maintenance costs for upkeep, while offering "fluffy" lies to their clientele.

Then there's perception.

The idea of using a golf cart and being able to stow a lot of additional gear such as coolers and extra everything along with the convenience of having a portable sunshade, drink holders and the general "fun" aspect of driving a motorized vehicle (which has a sort of child-like fun quality to it) as well as the somewhat elitist aspect of being transported as opposed to walking all help to "sell" the public on the idea of carts being the preferred way in which to move around a course.

And as I've said before, I have no problem with any of that other than the inability to access some really nice courses simply because the option to walk doesn't exists. In other words, I don't mind co-existing with carts, I just don't want walking to be replaced by them.

As for the article, I have no idea how I would get a copy of it. I just remember reading it in either Golf magazine or Golf Digest and it stuck in my mind. As far as when it appeared or in what issue, I have no idea.

If you know anyone associated with either of those magazines, perhaps you could mention the article and maybe they can locate it.


-JP
Click to expand...
I am 29 and drive a car every day but I went to play golf the other day, got in the damn cart, had so much fun getting to drive a motorized vehicle, I forgot what I was there for....I did see some people walking around with golf bags, they looked pretty "serious. Oh well, I have a cupp holder and a gas pedal, WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
 
*does donuts in the fairway*
 
*plays with cup holders while Hawk does donuts*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top