Who is this "everyone" you speak of? I realize you have a substantially high opinion of yourself, but even you do not qualify as "everyone". And even with you I don't recall ever having a cross word. eCommunications doesn't qualify as diddly. If you are find yourself seeing red from an email or post it is high time you took a little rest from it for a while.

Try to do a little catching up on what really matters in your life... hopefully that will not be some message board nemisis... (which I don't consider you or anyone for that matter).



Sweet...........can I use that for a bit " Try to do a little catching up on what really matters in your life... hopefully that will not be some message board nemisis... " :eek:

yes folks, admit it or not, the 2MR can and does determine shot selection!



I think I qualified my statement with "good players" thus rendering your example moot. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif


a perfect example of how nick's attitude towards others elicits such a negative reaction. nick, ALL players count, not just those who are better than you. what are you, some sort of elitist *****???

nick, ALL players count, not just those who are better than you. what are you, some sort of elitist *****???



Nah, Nick isn't really what I'd consider 'elitist'. :D

while the opinions of all deserve consideration -- shouldn't we have in mind top pro competitions when creating the PDGA rules? (Note what the "P" in PDGA stands for)

how the 2 meter rule effects hacks is moot. they can play under any set of rule variations they choose

yes folks, admit it or not, the 2MR can and does determine shot selection!



I think I qualified my statement with "good players" thus rendering your example moot. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif


a perfect example of how nick's attitude towards others elicits such a negative reaction. nick, ALL players count, not just those who are better than you. what are you, some sort of elitist *****???



LOL! You really put out some gems sometimes Pat, thanks!

My example sited players with higher skills, I didn't say I was one of them. You assumed that due to your high opinion of me. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

while the opinions of all deserve consideration -- shouldn't we have in mind top pro competitions when creating the PDGA rules? (Note what the "P" in PDGA stands for)

how the 2 meter rule effects hacks is moot. they can play under any set of rule variations they choose


Ninety-plus percent of us are "hacks". It's ridiculous to have one set of rules for top pros and another set of rules for the rest of us.

For example:

The rules don't change in chess for grandmasters.
The rules don't change in tennis for grand slam winners.
The rules don't change in the Tour de France for people with last name of Armstrong...

Rules are made for 100% of those who play the game.

If your argument is the 2MR is irrelevant because for the top 10% of players, it's irrelevant, then my response to that is unprintable.

Interesting !!!!! Standard Rules are just that !!!!!!

Same for all , across the board.

TD does have the right to make adjustments , accordingly.

You are a skilled debater Paul. This either helps you avoid the main point Rob was making or manipulate it.

Creating as fair a competition as possible is the goal of our rules. If the rules work for our best players then they will work for our worst players. Rob never suggested that we have different rules for better players, only that it is wise to use them as the prime example in figuring out how to improve our rules and make them fairer.

It's ridiculous to have one set of rules for top pros and another set of rules for the rest of us.

For example:

The rules don't change in chess for grandmasters.
The rules don't change in tennis for grand slam winners.
The rules don't change in the Tour de France for people with last name of Armstrong...

Rules are made for 100% of those who play the game.




<font color="blue"> that's exactly why I support the new improved rules for 2006 and commend the RC for eliminating the 2 meter rule as a form of force-fed OB. </font>


f your argument is the 2MR is irrelevant because for the top 10% of players, it's irrelevant, then my response to that is unprintable.



<font color="blue"> probably you are intentionally mistating my position to help your argument against it, but in case you really don't understand: my position is not that the 2 meter rule is irrelevant for top pros -- it is that the 2 meter rule is too unpredictable to effectively regulate skilled play in a reasonably equitable fashion. Further, its elimination does not stop trees from being the natural obstacles which they naturally are so only "tradition" makes the rule preferable as a mandated scenario.

as for your contention that the rules should be the same for everyone, why are baseball fields smaller for little leaguers? why are the base stealing rules differnet? in basketball, why is the three point line closer for college than for pros? i am okay with special conditions for those who aren't top pros, but let's keep in mind what the P in PDGA stands for when we advocate what the PDGA Rule Book should say. </font>

my position is not that the 2 meter rule is irrelevant for top pros -- it is that the 2 meter rule is too unpredictable to effectively regulate skilled play in a reasonably equitable fashion.


Unpredictable? The rule seems pretty deterministic to me. If a disc is stuck up in a tree above 2 meters, according to the rule, you penalize the shot. Cause and effect. That's determinism.

Now, you can't predict when the rule will come into play, but before a throw, what rule can you predict will come into play? That's right, the use of any rule is unpredictable until after the throw is over. Then, once it's over, the applicability of the 2MR, or of any other rule, is fairly straightforward.

my position is not that the 2 meter rule is irrelevant for top pros -- it is that the 2 meter rule is too unpredictable to effectively regulate skilled play in a reasonably equitable fashion.


Unpredictable? The rule seems pretty deterministic to me. If a disc is stuck up in a tree above 2 meters, according to the rule, you penalize the shot. Cause and effect. That's determinism.

Now, you can't predict when the rule will come into play, but before a throw, what rule can you predict will come into play? That's right, the use of any rule is unpredictable until after the throw is over. Then, once it's over, the applicability of the 2MR, or of any other rule, is fairly straightforward.


Hmmmmmmm........sounds straight forward Paul !!!!

my position is not that the 2 meter rule is irrelevant for top pros -- it is that the 2 meter rule is too unpredictable to effectively regulate skilled play in a reasonably equitable fashion.


Unpredictable? The rule seems pretty deterministic to me. If a disc is stuck up in a tree above 2 meters, according to the rule, you penalize the shot. Cause and effect. That's determinism.

Now, you can't predict when the rule will come into play, but before a throw, what rule can you predict will come into play? That's right, the use of any rule is unpredictable until after the throw is over. Then, once it's over, the applicability of the 2MR, or of any other rule, is fairly straightforward.



you apparently didn't listen to the PDGA radio segment (listen to it here) (http://www.pdga.com/pdgaradio/rn2004-10-11.wma ) interview of Carlton Howard explaining the Rule Committee's decision to eliminate the 2 meter rule -- or you failed to understand it.

using your statements above look at it this way:

if you were to predict the outcome of a thrown disc 1 meter prior to it flirting with OB water verses 1 meter prior to it striking a tree, predicting the outcome of the water shot would be far easier than predicting the outcome of the tree shot. (even skips off the water could be predicted by the angle and speed of the disc prior to it hitting water)

so, with a 2 meter rule in effect -- if Barry, Nate, and Ken are in a playoff and all throw a drive that turns right at the same point along a fairway where there is OB water on the right side of the fairway they'll all three be likely to end up with the same result. But if all three hit a tree at the same point along a fairway in roughly the same spot -- one out of about every ten times one of them will get a penalty (double jeopardy) for it in addition to having the tree deflect or reject their shot. That unpredictable random double penalty is not good for our sport.

one in ten??? i thought it was one in 600. or was it one in 1000???

if tiger, phil and vijay all hit monster drives challenging the trees that define the dogleg, and all end up 20 yards short crashing the treetops, there is a minute chance that one of them will have their ball stick way up there - and they will take a penalty stroke and play on. and they WONT moan about the injustice of it all or make up empty slogans about the "good of the sport".

good for the sport? what sport?!? if you're not playing it where it lies you are not playing golf! try to get that thru your thick head.

don't they have the option of climbing the tree and playing it from where it lies? :eek:

don't they have the option of climbing the tree and playing it from where it lies? :eek:



Come to think of it disc golfers can claim as a point of pride: "Yeah, we were already playing from the playing surface when ball golfers were still climbing trees." :D

one in ten??? i thought it was one in 600. or was it one in 1000???

if tiger, phil and vijay all hit monster drives challenging the trees that define the dogleg, and all end up 20 yards short crashing the treetops, there is a minute chance that one of them will have their ball stick way up there - and they will take a penalty stroke and play on. and they WONT moan about the injustice of it all or make up empty slogans about the "good of the sport".

good for the sport? what sport?!? if you're not playing it where it lies you are not playing golf! try to get that thru your thick head.



Hmmmmmmm.........maybe Tiger and Phil can climb tree's..........not so sure about ViJay though...........better get Adam Sandler and Bob Barker !!!!!!!!

Watch this video (http://www.charlottedgc.com/images/renaissance/Renny_13G.mpg) (Renny Gold #13 - aka 'Cedar Hell') and decide your disc selection, ideal shot placement and risk/reward for each throw. The 2MR makes this hole a �thinking man�s� hole rather than a �tin cup� sort of hole. Without the 2MR, the intrigue of this hole is vastly diminished. IMO, there should be lots of �thinking man�s� holes out there for tournament play.



At the most recent Club Singles event on this hole, an experienced local player in my group stuck above 2m.

He asked the group, "Is the 2m rule in effect?". From that, all I can surmise is that the 2m rule did not enter into his decision-making for that shot.

Also, comments heard from other members of his group on this shot included "That was a great shot", and "You couldn't have thrown it better".

Don't shoot the messenger, I'm here only to report a data point in this most important of social issues.

That's why I said it was a 'thinking man's hole" with the 2MR in effect. The comments seem to express a lack of that quality.

Looking at the other Pro's that day, I would say 1.5 of 6 them are thinking men, and both of them are really nice and would compliment a close to great shot despite the result.

Was the 2MR in effect?

He asked the group, "Is the 2m rule in effect?". From that, all I can surmise is that the 2m rule did not enter into his decision-making for that shot.

a) its the players responsibility to know the rules

b) without the screwing around with this rule he would not have had to ask

Looking at the other Pro's that day, I would say 1.5 of 6 them are thinking men.



Maybe 2.5, but it's tough to know when you've never met one of them!


Was the 2MR in effect?



From his posted score, it looks like it was.

Sandalman, I knew you couldn't resist my troll of a data point.