add information about a "punch shot"

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)[reply]

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

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)

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 blows. Bye. -w!z

- John

This looks like a step forward in the evolution of the Golf article. I'll replace that section with your version. Kosebamse 08:45, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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)[reply]

Request attention to Bernard Darwin, golf journalist. Cheers, Dunc_Harris|☺ 00:55, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This article is getting rather long, and I would like to move out a section. As the "clubs" section would make a fine enough article by itself, it could be taken out, but the naming problem should be solved first. Golf club should be a disambiguation page pointing to

1. a page about golf clubs that you are a member of
2. a page about golf clubs that you play with

The first could be at Golf club (institution), but I am at a loss what to call the other one. Any ideas? Swedophile 14:36, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

golf club (implement) would make sense. Dunc_Harris|☺ 11:50, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have made it at golf club (equipment), but being no native English speaker, I am not sure if that was a good idea. Please feel free to move that page. Swedophile 19:38, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, equipment is probably better.

As a duffer I prefer "equipment" too. Good call. How about somebody explaining in terms that are not circular the meaning of the rules term "through the green."--Buckboard 09:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)[reply]

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)

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 [ Ludram] 14:07, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

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"?

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)

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[reply]

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)

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)

Sorry Zoomzoom, but that addition does not seem to make sense. If you define that "sport is defined as a cardiovascular activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs" then golf is a sport and it makes no sense to dispute that as you do. There are certainly many more definitions of "sport" that may or may not include golf. And on the whole, it does not seem to matter much, but traditionally, golf seems to be considered a game more often than not. I don't really care what it is called, but please let's keep the article consistent. Cheers, Kosebamse 13:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that golf is a sport. Facts&moreFacts 22:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golf is most certainly a sport since it required a skilled physcial movement to play (i.e. a golf swing).

I'd say this could be a featured article. What do you people think?

The sentence: It has been hypothesised that golf actually stands for Gentleman Only Ladies Forbidden, but may only be local conjecture, seems to be so clearly an urban myth that it can't be true. Considering that golf was invented over 500 years ago, when it wouldn't have been considered remotely likely that woman would play any sport, naming it for such a reason makes. Either way, this conjecture doesn't belong in the section it is in. EAi 00:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't that what Peter's great grandfather says in the Family Guy Episode about the rules of GOLF. No women no black people. ;-)

It's not bad to include the folk etymology, along with true etymology. User:Yau

There is not allowed for ladies and children to play at Troon golf club in Scotland.

• Where did you get this nonsense? Ladies can play; under-16s play the Portland course. A quick visit to the website http://www.royaltroon.co.uk/ would have confirmed that. Please sign your comments with 4 tildes. Alex 08:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reposted a section on this "folk" entemology and it was reverted. I posted it in the history section, clearly indicating that it was a colloquial (though not sure if that word describes it best) description. Considering that the rest of the History section is educated guesswork at best on the origins and history (much disagreement is obvious) I don't see the harm in entertaining this idea too. Or is there somewhere such a description would be a better fit? Is denying its entry akin to saying, "we can't have a listing for the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot cause we think it's folklore" ?

• See [1] or [2] or [3] or [4] for why not. Why continue to popularise this internet myth? It's not "folk" etymology and it's not colloquial either; it's just plain wrong, and to be included will need to point out that this is the case; otherwise violates WP:V. Please sign your comments with 4 tildes. Alex 19:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need a mentioning of what golf is called in Scots at the beginning of this article? I don't think we need it any more than we need to mention what it's called in Spanish, French, German, Dutch etc. Facts&moreFacts 22:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC) Oh, I guess it makes sense to include it, considering the fact that golf originated in Scotland. Facts&moreFacts 22:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should the golf that happened on the moon by the people that landed on the moon be mentioned in this article? Facts&moreFacts 22:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- too many people editing it who don't exactly know much about golf. For example, a statement like Unlike a water hazard, a sand trap offers no option for removing one's ball other than by playing it out (except in a very few extraordinary circumstances) is just patently false, as Rule 28 of the rules of golf clearly states the opposite. Once in a while I try to clean up here, but help from experts would be appreciated. Thanks. Kosebamse 07:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---I'm new to this site, but used to work at the USGA and wanted to offer something on the above comment: You are correct that Rule 28 permits the player to declare his ball unplayable anywhere on the course excpet in a water hazard and option (a) of that Rule permits the player to play a ball at the spot from where the original ball was last played (aka "stroke and distance"). Therefore, the player would be "removing" the ball from the bunker (note that another ball may be substituted when proceeding under Rule 28), under penalty of one stroke (Rule 28) under this option in any case except that in which the last stroke was played from within the bunker (in which case the spot from which the original ball was last played would be in the bunker). This position is supported from another angle under Decision 27/17.

Also, note that there is no equivalent to Rule 26-2 for a ball in a bunker (a so-called "regression" Rule).

There are more names for the scoring in golf: http://www.anyonefortee.com/Scoring/Birds.html Would It be appropriate to include them here?

None of these are in common use and the vast majority of golfers has not even heard of them. Because Wikipedia is not the place to popularise little-known things, these should be not included. Kosebamse 05:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This section on college golf is (1) empty and (2) more seriously "college golf" doesn't make a great deal of sense outside of America (and probably no sense to the vast majority of the world's golfers) and appears particularly parochial. I'd vote for deleting this section. Alex 22:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is very US-college-centric and far too specialist for an article of this scope. Move to College golf in the US or something similar. 80.122.67.118 09:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to College Golf in the US Alex 12:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re this edit of mine. I have removed the instructional text on grounds that the article is already very long, and that these passages were written in a non-encyclopedic style. I do believe that such information belongs into Wikipedia, but it should be rewritten to be descriptive instead of instructive, and should go to a separate article about golf shots. Kosebamse 08:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain, either in the article or here, the meaning (in vernacular English) of the term "through the green" as used throughout the USGA rules? --Buckboard 09:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the following text, which is instructional rather than descriptive. See also my comment above, the same applies here. Kosebamse 07:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard Grip: To start, you want to have the handle of the putter so it runs under the butt of your left hand. You want the back of your right hand so it is parallel to your left hand. When you do this it ensures that both of your hands are square to the target, it is much easier to keep the face of the putter square during the stroke. Your right thumb should extend down the shaft to a point just below your right forefinger. The back of your left hand should be facing the target. You want your thumbs positioned directly down the top of the handle so you can feel the putter swing back and through the ball.

• Stance: When it comes to stance, the main idea is comfort. Some people feel a wider stance gives them a feeling of stability and stops them from swaying. Others feel a narrow stance helps them stand more erect and gives them a better view of the line.

• Ball Position: You want your eyes directly over the ball at address. This indicates you are standing the proper distance from the ball, your posture is good and you have a dependable view of the line you want the ball to roll on. Always make sure your eyeline is parallel to the target line. If you cock your head to the left or right at address even slightly, you'll subconsciously steer the putterhead in the direction your eyes are aligned.

• Swing Path: Once you align the face of the putter square to the target line, the most important thing is to return the clubface to that position at impact. the best way to do that is to swing the putter straight back and straight through along the same path.

• Right-to-Left: Most right-handed players prefer a putt that breaks from right to left. That's because the arms and hands are moving outward, away from the body, through impact. It's a bit more natural to stroke the ball this way, rather than drawing your hands and arms inward toward your body through impact.

• Left-to-Right: The idea to this putt is to allow the putter to release freely through impact. A habit of a everyday player is to let the putterhead drift to the right through impact. The result is a miss on the low side of the hole. You should try to keep your head down, trust your line, and let the putter release naturally.

• Lag-put: The idea of this putt is just to get it close. You would use a lag putt when your putt is longer than 40 feet. To do this you should try to get the ball as close as you can so you avoid a three-putt and just have a tap-in left.

The page for the Old Course at St. Andrews clames that it is older than The Old Links at Musselburgh. Which course is older? —David618 00:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Andrews Old is the oldest golf course to have been layed out as a specific course I believe. No one knows where golf was originally played and some believe it was played at musselburgh before st. andrews, but there was no formal course to speak of.

I have started a small page on Turf management. This includes a section on the maintenance of Golf courses and would appreciate any feed back or help. IndianSunset 16:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chilly Dip : shouldn't it be "Chili" as in soup as in ladle?

Fried Egg: This is not a shot at all, but a lie (possibly the result of a poor shot, but not always) in the bunker.

Foot Wedge: Again, not a shot since it doesn't involve the club at all and is simply a euphemism for cheating. "Only use this shot when playing a friendly round of golf." Or better yet, don't use it at all. It's not a shot, it's cheating and it's doubtful that your playing companions would approve even during a friendly round especially with a wager placed on the outcome. The rules define the game of golf and intentionally breaking them whether it's witnessed or not is poor form and defeats the entire purpose of the game.

The term 'Leather Wedge' is in more common use than 'Foot Wedge' and it is a shot because a deliberate attempt to move the ball, to gain distance, or a better lie is made by striking the ball. It is of course cheating, just like hitting the ball with an illegal club is both a shot and cheating.

I found an old issue of golf tips laying around in my house and i read it for a while. On one page, it said the average 12 year old hits the ball 100 yards, while the average adult hits the ball 150-200 yards, but i'm 12 and i can hit the ball on average 200 yards (note: i play a lot). Whats up with that? But anyway i added the info. 67.72.98.85 02:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think putting should not redirect to Golf. It deserves its own article talking about types of putters, its correlation to a golfer's success, proper form etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lask3r (talk • contribs) .

I agree, especially since it is not just a component of golf but of mini-golf also. -- Renesis13 02:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my friends and i have regularly played 2 or three players to one set of clubs. This requires a little work: you could do with a putter each but otherwise sharing isnt a problem as you all tee off seperatley, and if you end up at different ends of a par 5 to each other you grab a roughly sutiable club, or three, or the closest if someone else has the exact one you want. or you wait. I expect playing this way is far too much fun than you're normally allowed to have on a golf course though :-)

anyway, my point being that "easily" is probably not the correct wording, though i understand it's probably not allowed at some courses, but the level of enforcement may vary considerably.

cycloid 13:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with sharing is not the logistics of it, but the fact that most courses forbid it and wont allow you to tee off on the 1st if you dont each have your own set of clubs.

I think that two of the redirects given at the top of the page: "Putting can also refer to shot put. "This article includes information on golf swings. For other meanings, see Swing. "

Are a little bit jarring to the reader and slightly off topic. While I can certainly understand the relevance of these redirects, I'm curious as to how many people search for "putting" meaning shot put, and Swing doesn't even redirect to the golf page. I think that we may want to consider removing these two redirects, as their functionality may not be worth the space they take up at the top of the article. Thoughts? --Rahzel 00:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first golf course in the word was actually Leith links http://www.scottishgolfhistory.net/leith_links_first_golf_competition.htm and not St Andrews as a lot of people claim, nor was it Musselburgh though they were a close second. The rules of Golf were written in a clubhouse that was also on the links.

Terri ( who's house overlooks Leith Links )

Under section 9.1 - Cost to Play there is the following reference: "Caddyshack did not do much to elevate this belief above observable reality."

I think this statement is too founded in personal opinion than actual fact. Does anyone agree? Phosphoricx 20:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I removed this reference. Good find. --Rahzel 20:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be a section at the bottom listing golf video games, right after the golf movies? There are, you know, quite a few of them: Mario Golf, Tiger Woods' games, other non-Nintendo golf games, and of course, Wii Sports: Golf. dogman15 23:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I just came to this article for the first time and am finding it hard to believe that there's no mention of the different sets of tees for professionals, men, and women. Maybe I missed it, so if it is mentioned then please let me know and maybe point me to it. If it isn't there (as I couldn't find it), then I will gladly add some verbage on it soon. I'll probably add it in the "Anatomy of a course" section. Thanks. --luckymustard 21:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's indeed a relevant omission, and the "anatomy" section is the place where it belongs. Thanks for helping.