Talk:Golf/Archive 1

Suspected bias

"Although golf is a minor issue compared to other land-ethics questions"

Minor issue? According to the UN, golf uses 2.5 billion gallons of clean water per day, enough to provide fresh drinking water to 4.7 billion people. That's not a "minor issue". That's about as major as it gets. That's more impact on the world's resources than global warming, the Iraq War, or any other "major issue" I can think of. clarify the statement. Dreslough (talk) 08:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think paragraph would still be information and wiki-appropriate if you removed that opening clause which is really more about bias than about stating any facts.

I wonder what the environmental impact of Golf is compared to, say, computer gaming?WhaleyTim (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hyperbole

"Because golf has become the platform through which business people interact, evaluate each other, and generally talk/negotiate," ..."the platform?" really? I woulda thought most business was still conducted, y'know, at work.

agreed. though I think the statement may have some truth to it. There are perhaps some part of the world and/or segments of business where some business people intact in this manner. I hope that those that know what these are (if they exist) clarify the statement. War (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

also agreed. should change 'the platform' to 'a platform'.

Price of Golfing overexaggerated

I think the article exaggerates the cost of golf. It doesn't mention anything about earlybird or twiglight rates. The average price of golf mentioned is probably the price of golf in the middle of the day in the middle of summer on a weekend. At some courses, the price is in the high twenties even without any discounts, not in the high 30's. And you don't have to buy all the equipment to play golf. I play with normal shoes

Types of shots

Added information about a "punch shot" a "punch shot" is shot that is played when the player comes acroos a situation where his/hers ball is under crowded environment(e.g bushes)and needs to put the ball back on the fairway to ensure a possible next shot. The execution of the punch shot requires stiff arms and hands and a putting stroke motion. Seven, six or even five iron is most commonly used for this shot because of its low club face angle to give it a low tragetory.

Point of view

The past few edits have been very pov.

I shall try to find a "happy medium" so to speak.

Mu Gamma 06:35, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

punch shot used when stuck under a tree low shot where you are hitting hard through the ball while keeping you hands close to the ground to keep the ball down and "punch" it back out to the fairway

In the "Handicaping" section, the following statement is present, "Professional golfers typically score several strokes below par for a round". Im not sure if this is appropriate. If you look at the scores of all players in any given professional tourney, is it true that "typically" they shoot under par? I dont think it is true at all. This is a POV issue I think. If it is agreed (or not contested)I will remove it.~~

Opposition to golf

moved from talk:particle physics. Let's discuss how to handle this:

Golf is a uniquely destructive game and has uniquely determined opponents - there is an Anarchist Golfing Association that tears up genetically-damaged grass, complaints by various NGOs that pressure to sell land to golf developers has led to farmers in the Phillipines being killed for it, that golf creates a monoculture ecology and requires massive maintenance and pesticides that destroy everything around it, and that all attempts to make it more ecologically friendly (i.e. more "rough" areas left alone, raised-bump balls that fly half as far on very small specially designed courses) have totally failed to catch on widely.

To be fair, if there are other games that have that kind of objection list, or opposition, let's hear it. If any other "game" becomes so emblematic and demonstrative of Dominator culture that it has to be destroyed, then the page on that game must reflect that controversy. Golfers don't define what golf means, and physicists don't define what particle physics means, and there must at least in both cases be links to separate articles describing the entire controversy. I'm just opening up the issue to a general discussion - when you have a field or game that seems non-controversial to its supporters but brutal and evil and wasteful to it's opponents, how should we handle it? An article on the game and a separate one on the politics? All in one place so the two groups *must* encounter each other? What?

An article on the game and a separate one on the politics, or a separate one for each political school of thought which is worth an encyclopedia article. Matthew Woodcraft

the approach I tried re w:particle physics was to leave the PP basic article alone, and carefully outline what a w:particle physics foundation ontology (i.e. PP standard model used as an FO) meant to other sciences and culture. That was questioned and sabotaged repeatedly with petty objections that had no merit nor ethical process - the PPFO article was questioned even though the overly-abbreviated terms "particle zoo" and "particle ontology" are in very common use, even the idea that there *COULD BE* a w:foundation ontology other than PP's current w:Standard Mode <-- note the name imperialism, there are lots of "Standard Models" and most Americans, even, think that means a car. Eventually the PPFO article was cut back to a bare minimum that math fetishists and physics geeks could stand, then jammed into particle physics where even that was cut out by cultists. This was all grist for the mill, and it illustrated a destructive clique that must be politically eliminated, but it was hardly fun. I presume exactly the same thing will happen with golf, with social psychology,

with (unethical) investing, with (amoral) purchasing, and dozens of other activities which are incompatible with the new millenium.

that said, I'll back any reasonable scheme you can lay out, and I'll pound at the golfers in talk pages without mercy, until we at least force all of them here to acknowledge that the controversy is real and will not go away until their "game" goes away - same argument as the particle accelerator gollums. And, since I've been on the side of the angels for these two things, I'll switch over to the side of Satan and defend the 50 useless Ayn Rand articles or articles tainted with Rand or Popper so they retain their essential character. Just to be balanced... I'm still concerned that none of these concerns is all that close to the meta:three billionth user - whose interests I keep firmly in mind. I expect he's a phillipine tenant farmer about to be shot by thugs so his land can go for golf...

"Golf is uniquely distructive?" Really? Then let's replace golf courses with loud, polluting car-racing ovals. Or gun ranges that leave toxic lead in the wilderness. Or just another minimall. Please use true, specific statements instead of baseless, untrue conclusions. Golf is only distructive of the stereotypes applied to it but the unknowing.

This entire “environmental” section ought be removed because it is almost entirely an unbalanced, unsupported, untrue, off-point POV rant by an author who admits, in this discussion section, that the purpose is to “make the game go away” and not to inform the reader about the game. Why is there any ongoing discussion about “how to handle this”? If the author wants to write an article about “land-reform movements, especially in the Philippines and Indonesia” let the author do so, but let’s not pollute Wikipedia with the author’s personal political rants off-topic. Or, as an alternative, would you like me to add to the “environmental” section my own views on ill-informed activists who feel they must abuse the privilege of those (Wikipedia participants) who choose to communicate in accord with some community standards? If any user wishes to educate us on any specific instance of current, illegal, adverse environmental impact of a golf course, that is specific to the game being played there and not a rant about an alernative use the author prefers, then let's hear it. Because no one else has yet illustrated the obvious , I’ll take the time to expose the author’s violations of Wiki-policy (though an expert could do much better):

Allegation 1: “Environmental concerns over the use of land for golf courses have grown over the past 50 years.” Response 1: Environmental concerns over the use of ALL land, air and water has grown over the past 50 years. So, this rant does not belong in a golf article – it states no particular association with golf. Golf courses are no less subject to laws, regulation or misuse than is any other land and, arguably, golf courses are some of the best uses of land from an environmental view. Indeed, many communities around the world enjoy the green-space, CO2-absorbing, air-cooling, recreational, wildlife-friendly, economic positive impacts of their golf courses.

Allegation 2: Specific concerns include the amount of water and chemical pesticides and fertilizers used for maintenance, as well as the destruction of wetlands and other environmentally important areas during construction.” Response 2: The “specific” concerns are not specific to golf. Water and chemical use is a concern for all aspects of living – all farms, all household lawns and gardens, parks, roadsides, swimming pools, kitchen chemicals, laundry chemicals, disposable batteries, electronic waste etc. So, this rant does not belong in a golf article – it states no particular association with golf.

Allegation 3: “A notable toxic chemical used on golf courses is diazinon; however, this substance was banned in the United States as of the year 2004.” Response 3: Wrong again. According to Wikipedia’s own article on Diazinon, that chemical has not been used on golf courses for about 19 years. And why was its use first proscribed there and on sod farms? “because … of bird flocks that congregated in these areas”, says Wikipedia. Oh, my! The anti-golf author not only erroneously stated that diazanon is a “chemical used on golf courses” but also conveniently omitted a reference to how well golf courses actually fit into a balanced environment. The birds love it! And, when trying to concede that diazanon is now outlawed, failed to mention that golf courses were 16 years ahead of that curve. So, this rant does not belong in a golf article – it states no particular association with golf.

Allegation 4: “These, along with health and cost concerns, have led to significant research into more environmentally sound practices and turf grasses. The modern golf course superintendent is often trained in the uses of these practices and grasses. This has led to some mitigation in the amount of chemicals and water used on courses. The turf on golf courses is an excellent filter for water and has been used in many communities to cleanse grey water, such as incorporation of bioswales.” Response 4: Let’s provide a few outside links to support the benefits and projects by golf courses. ( I am NOT connected with any golf business or program; these are just a few I collected from simple internet searches): The Golf Course Superintendents Association of America conducts an Environmental Management Program that focuses on six specific areas of study and technician training for upgrading field skills. http://www.gcsaa.org/about/default.asp Audubon International http://www.audubonintl.org/programs/acss/golf.htm has a certification program in which participate “more than 2,110 golf courses in 24 countries” to “enhance the valuable natural areas and wildlife habitats that golf courses provide”. The program provides “guidance, as well as educational information to help you with: Environmental Planning, Wildlife and Habitat Management, Chemical Use Reduction and Safety. Water Conservation, Water Quality Management, and Outreach and Education” The United States Golf Association and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation jointly conduct a “Wildlife Links” program. http://www.usga.org/turf/images/photos/Wildlife_Links_lo-res.pdf The foregoing are specificly golf-related and so belong in any non-POV article on golf environment. Untrue and unsupported POV rants do not belong.

Allegation 5: Many people continue to oppose golf courses for environmental and human survival reasons, as they impede corridors for migrating animals and sanctuaries for birds and other wildlife. In fact, the effective non-native monoculture of golf courses systematically destroys biodiversity. Response 5: “Many people continue to oppose” anything you can possible name. The problem with this rant is that it provides no specification or link to what the “environmental and human survival reasons” might be. As such it is a purely non-specific, unsupported, political statement – and therefore violates Wikipedia policies.

Allegation 6: “In some parts of the world, attempts to build courses and resorts have led to significant protests along with vandalism and violence by both sides.” Response 6: The statement is correct if you substitute any words for “courses and resorts” and so is not specific to golf. At least the author confesses to “vandalism and violence” on the part of opponents. This is pure POV.

Allegation 7: “Although golf is a relatively minor issue compared to other land-ethics questions, it has symbolic importance as it is a sport normally associated with the wealthier Westernized population, and the culture of colonization and globalization of non-native land ethics. Resisting golf tourism and golf's expansion has become an objective of some land-reform movements, especially in the Philippines and Indonesia. Response 7: OK, do I have to continue? If golf continues to be "associated with wealthier Westernized populations", it is largely because of untrue babbling like that of this author. The author, in despair of being able to provide any real references to golf-specific environmental harm, and admitting that golf is at least a “relatively minor issue" even in the author’s view, now devolves into “symbolic”, “associated”, “Western” (Ooo! That’s evil by definition, right?), “globalization”, “land ethics” Pure Pure Pure POV.

[[User:Sorker 05:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Social aspects of Golf

I just added ==Social aspects of golf==.

That may deserve its own page, so as not to taint this one. It's an utter shame that such a cool sport is popular among (and, in some eyes, has become a symbol of) the Corporate Enemy. Mike Church 06:36, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Social Aspects of Golf" is too vague and broad a topic. Why not "Unsupported Anarchistic Opposition to All Things Western"? Sorker 14:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Slice and hook for the left

Does the slice and hook terms reverse for a left handed player?

Yes. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 08:37, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, they don't. It's all about perspective. A hook is still a hook and a slice is still a slice. The terms remain the same, only the direction of the ballflight changes. For right-handed players a hook goes left and a slice goes right. For lefties, hooks go right and slices go left. | Optiks 06:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Check out this site:[1]

I am right handed and I remember that Captain Hook had the hook on his left hand so the hook goes to the left. Now whether the hook was really on the left or right hand I don't know, but it helps me remember.

They do indeed reverse. A hook is not a direction, but a type of shot, caused by one of several specific errors. If a right handed golfer made one of these errors, the ball would fly left. If a left handed golfer did, the ball would fly right.--Elmorell 00:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Related to the above, I have today edited the descriptions which were in place for "hook" and "slice", specifically because those terms refer to mistake shots rather than intentionally-shaped shots. So, I altered the descriptions so that "draw" and "fade" are highlighted, with "hook" and "slice" respectively identified as the mistake or uncontrolled versions of those shots. Darcyj (talk) 09:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Links

Can someone put a definition of (Golf) Links. Thanks.

I will start a paragraph on types of golf courses, but it will not be too much - help welcome. Swedophile 17:20, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think what he's asking for is information about why golf courses are referred to as "links", not information on types of courses. Unless "links" differ from standard courses, he wants us to look into the etymology, origins etc. of the of term. I think. At any rate, that's why I'm here. Why the heck are they called "links"? If anyone knows and has a reference, stick it on the golf page somewhere, would you? Thanks a million! Papayafrenzy (talk)

Soil-covered sand dunes near to the sea were known as linksland (perhaps as they link the land to the sea). Most early Scottish golf courses were layed out on this type of land, probably because the thin layer of soil made the land unusable for intensive agriculture. Hence golf links. I have added a (not terribly well referenced) sentence to the 'Golf Course' section of the article. WhaleyTim (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

The intro said that golf "continues to attract ever more players around the world". Unless we've got some figures on relative numbers of golfers over time, that had to come out. --195.11.216.59 15:57, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Its well known that the number of golfers worldwide is going steadily up. LUDRAMAN | T 17:57, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

yes but we need proof. Will delete if none given tommylommykins 16:16, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Definition of par

The article says

• Par: abbrev. for "professional average result", standard score for a hole (defined by its difficulty) or a course (sum of all the holes' pars)

That professional average bit puzzles me. Pars for courses and holes are not set for professionals, but for all golfers regardless of skill. When did someone in golfdom decide that the word par stood for "professional average result"? I couldn't find anything definitive on google. And of course, the rules of golf do not define par so it would be interesting to know where "professional average result" came from. Also, I changed defined by its length to defined by its difficulty. Some courses have par fours which are shorter than par threes on other courses. Not common, but happens. Moriori 19:59, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Prof Avg Result is apocryphal. Check any decent dictionary. I'm in the process of removing it from anywhere in wikipedia where it remains. Matchups 02:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted that before reading your comment here. You are right abouth this, there are indeed some unusually long par threes and some unusually short par fours; howver the most common definition is by length - the course architect can of course deviate from the formula. So how can we best put it? Kosebamse 20:52, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi Kosebamse. Yes, it's a curly one. Depends how technical we want to get. It's really a combination of length-difficulty, with effective playing length being the major guideline for determining par. Here's a quote from an American site I just visited -- "Say a hole's actual yardage is 508 yards. That hole, by its actual yards, might be a par-5. But what if the hole plays downhill all the way? It's effective playing length - how long the hole actually plays like - might be closer to 450 yards. Therefore, a hole whose actual length might make some think it should be par-5 really only plays like a par-4. According to current guidelines, that hole would be a par-4 (the guidelines are not hard and fast rules, by the way, but simply ... well, guidelines). Prior to the introduction of effective playing length into course ratings, the guidelines were based on actual yards. It's interesting to see how they've changed over the years". Should we simply say defined by a combination of length and difficulty? Cheers.. Moriori 21:13, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

If it's indeed "effective playing length" that counts, we should try to explain that in a few words, but I am not sure how to put it. Perhaps we should say that the traditional definition was only by length and that today's course rating systems use a concept of effective length; however we would also have to explain the concept of course rating then. Cheers, Kosebamse 07:01, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Very useful information. Thanks wikimedia 124.29.192.52 07:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Note sure if this has been resolved adequately yet. "Par" for any one hole is determined as the number of shots required to reach the green, plus two (ie, two putts). How many shots does it take to reach a green? The factors taken into account are distance and difficulty. The distance ranges that are in the currect article text should be removed, because they seem to be slewed to the expectations of professional golf - I know of no 224-metre par 3 on any course that I have seen. The same distance ranges are cited in the Golf Course article - an article tagged as having no sources. Finally, there seems to be a crying need in this section (Par) for a link to an article on Golf Course Rating. Darcyj (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Golf on FAC

Golf is on WP:FAC at the moment and the main objection seems to be the lack of references. Could anyone who added to the article please cite references? It would be a great help. Thanks. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 14:07, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Who invented golf

Golf was invented by the Vikings in the mid 13th century.

This is a long and exhaustive debate for which the answer is not clear. Therefor I do not think we should include this in the article.

I dispute that the first golf course in the world was Musselburgh, it was actually in St. Andrews that golf began in Scotland. The game of golf was forbidden across the St. Andrews links by an act of Scottish Parliament in 1457, under King James II. This was because it was interfering with his soldiers' archery practice. It may well be that the first organized course designed solely for the game was in Musselburgh, but golf was being played in St. Andrews more than 200 years previous to the founding of Musselburgh links. Any discussion of the history of golf must include St. Andrews.

As for the game originating in the Netherlands, that is likely. There were strong trade links between the port of St. Andrews and the Netherlands in the 15th Century, and the 'links' terrain is very similar in the two places. I have also heard of a game called 'ice kolf' which was a winter game played to a hole in the ice.

Andrew Holland Washington, DC December 9, 2005

Origins of Golf

Although a lot of discusiion goes on around the origins of Golf, the latest edition of the Encyclopædia Brittanica states it has originated in the Netherlands. This is the result of research done by a German historian. His team have found early paintings of the game of "Kolven" which clearly shows a hole. The existence of a hole in the game of Kolven has previously been the remaining argument to claim the origins in Scotland.

A remark on this discussion seems in place.

Arjen Simonis The Netherlands April 28th, 2005

The first ever golf course in the world was the Old Links at Musselburgh. Golf has been played there since 1672.

---

Speaking of PoV... "Golf is not inherently an expensive activity; the cost of an average round of golf is USD $36".

I think that matters on perspective. $36 for a few hours of golf is nothing when you make $30/hr (or $100/hr) but $36 is completely out of the price range affordable to somebody who is living on a fixed income, etc. When I'm working as a high-tech contractor at $50+/hr I wouldnt' think twice about paying $36 for soemthing (though not golf) but when I'm between contracts the math can look very different sometimes. Something to think about when you're condsidering if this article has systemic bias. Consider for a moment that in the vast majority of the world most people don't make $30/wk let alone have the time for playing golf. I'm not saying golf is evil or anything of the sort, but when compared to a game like football (soccer) or baseball it's incredibly expensive. (Note the article doesn't mention the cost of equipment or clothing, etc. either.)

Gabe 19:05, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Question: What is the origin of the word "Fore"?

Does it count?

In the segment "Men's majors", there's an observation about Tiger Woods's number of triumphs that caught my eye: we state that he has won nine majors, but between parenthesis we say that it's 12 if his 3 US Amateurs victories are considered. This cannot be. I do know that the majors weren't always the present four, two amateur championships used to be majors and the US Amateurs was one of them. So, this sort of consideration may be in order if we're speaking about an older golfer, one who was active when the transition to the modern Grand Slam of Golf was made. Other than that, it is unencyclopedic to count, even if alternatively, victories in tournaments that are not recognized by the sport's governing bodies as majors. Tiger's career starts in the 1990's. By then I believe that the modern majors were already established, so there doesn't seem to be a point in including his US Amateurs victories in his "majors count", even if alternatively, since when he won it, it was no longer considered a major. Unless we're talking about the so-called "Amateur Grand Slam", but that doesn't seem to be what is being said in this particular passage. If no one oposes, I will remove that referrence. Regards, Redux 02:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Many golfers, including Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus (the current major record holder), consider the US Amateur as a major tournament. The governing bodies of golf, the USGA and R&A, do not distinguish specific tournaments as majors.Elmorell 00:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI: I just finished watching the Open Championship where Tiger's amateur wins were discussed in his major total. One of the announcers said that Jack Nicklaus often said he (Jack) had 20 majors - 18 professional and 2 amateur. Then the announcers discussed all the top golfers and the number of majors they had - both professional and amateur. Then in the graphics the top majors were listed with the caveat that these were *professional* majors. So the distinction is still there even though the golfers are from mid-20th century forward. I'd leave it in because it's still obviously discussed by golf professionals. Maryb889 21:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)maryb889

Golfbio-stub

How do you create it? --Somaliafriend 17:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's easy. Use this [now red] link: Template:golfbio-stub. Since the page doesn't exist at this point, you will be taken to a standard page that will inform you of that and offer you a link to create the article, in this case a template. There you can write the text you think should appear and maybe even add an image related to golf. In order for it to work better, we also link, in the template page, the categories in which the pages to be tagged with the template should appear. Every article you tag with the template will then be listed in the correspondent category (especially the stub categories). Once the page is created, you can tag any article by writing in the following: {{golfbio-stub}}. Here's an example, the similar template for football: Template:footybio-stub. I hope this helps. Regards, Redux 17:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Scoring

I've done some restructuring to remove clutter from the intro (moved to the scoring section). If I've created any misinformation because of that (I'm not a golf expert) could someone correct it (the article seems to be describing match and stroke play as the same thing. PLEASE DO'NT DO A REVERT tommylommykins 13:00, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Stableford

Only stroke scoring, ie total number of shots, is described. Stableford scoring, where points are scored for achieving bogey or better (after handicap-based adjustment), is ingored completely. Is this an intentional omission, because it is far and away the most common type of scoring in handicapped club competition in Australia. Darcyj (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)