Talk:Golf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Golf article.
Article policies
Golf Portal
The article on Golf is supported by the Golf WikiProject, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Golf related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Golf as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Swedish language Wikipedia.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Peer review Golf has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 30s. And you don't have to buy all the equipment to play golf. I play with normal shoes


[edit] Types of shots

add 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.


[edit] 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.~~


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] End of New Version

- 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Bernard Darwin

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

[edit] need help with naming new articles (golf club etcetera)

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)

[edit] 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)


Buy Bernard Darwin Books here Top 100 Golf Courses Shop


Encyclopædia Brittanica

[edit] Intro

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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


[edit] 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"?

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Sport or game?

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)

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

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

The definition of a sport is not that it takes physical skill to play. The definition of a sport is that you have a direct opponent right there trying to stop you. In golf, is there any direct opposition trying to block the ball or something. No, there isn't, therefore golf is a game, not a sport. This isn't a bad thing, even though most people take it like that.

I think that your definition of what a sport is is arguable, at best. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of variations of the definition of a sport and/or game, and how it applies to golf. Anyway, the general consensus on this article, over the period of time I've been involved in maintaining it, is that golf is a sport. Unless there is a significant majority of people who wish to change Golf to a game, let's leave it that way for now. Regards, Rahzel 00:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

A sport doesn't have to be a game with a direct opponent. If that was the case, then a lot of sports, including winter and summer olympic sports really wouldn't be sports. This includes skiing, golf, gymnastics, track, cross country, swimming, snowboarding, and archery

Golf's not a sport. A sport should require strenuous physical activity. Mack 01:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

And where does it say that? Is it in a dictionary or something? Baseball really doesn't require much strenuous physical activity.

Try this: A game is an activity involving compliance with a set of rules for the purpose of achieving or completing an objective, which may mean "winning" the game or may mean mere completion or fulfillment. Cf crossword puzzles, which are completed but do not involve a win. Sport is a subset of game, and the distinguishing characteristics of sport are that the activity involves competition against an opponent or opponents in any single occurrence of the activity, and that the result is determined by a quantitive measurement (ie, points, time, distance, etc) that is influenced by the physical achievements of the participants. That is, the participants must use a physical action to achieve their score (regardless of how strenuous the physical activity might be). The fact that one can practice a sport does not invalidate its status as a sport on the grounds of the lack of opposition; a competition of multiple participants is still the normal and primary version.
Under these definitions, it is easy to see that Chess and Poker are not sports (they can be executed without any physical exertion), but Golf along with Bowling and Darts (to name but two disputed pursuits) is most certainly a sport. Darcyj (talk) 10:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article?

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

[edit] Gentleman Only Ladies Forbidden

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)

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. ;-)

The quote from Family Guy is actually "So, we're all clear on the rules then. No Jews and no blacks." [2] (Justinslink 17:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC))

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)


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" ?

I was the one who reverted the edit (as well as several Gentlemen Only Ladies Forbidden edits in the past). I have no particular objection to referring to this as a colloquial--my objection is the lack of a cited source with this statement. None of these edits have had any sort of source supporting this statement, and until someone can provide a source, I will most likely continue to revert those edits, as otherwise it just seems like an excuse for people to put blatantly sexist statements in the article.
Also, so as not to be a hypocrite, I will go through the history section and see if I can either find sources for the questionable statements, or add "Source Needed" tags for the information that seems correct but I can't find a source for. I hope that makes sense and is acceptable to all. --Rahzel 19:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • See [3] or [4] or [5] or [6] 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)


I'll buy the argument about lacking citiation (though I challenge you to find a citation for ANY "folk" understanding or "wivestale"), and clearly it is not the source of the word as this explaination is abundantly rejected throughout scholarly work: that wasn't the point of posting it. However, I'm not so sure this means it has no place here. Clearly, the fact that it is discussed and disputed so regularly, the statement has some type of value, regardless of its accuracy or inaccuracy. Can this not be added in some way with clear indication that it is not factual? I don't think this is a case of trying to add "blatantly sexist statements", but rather an attempt to recognize a common explaination. I understand that Wikipedia is focused on factual info, no problem, the EXISTENCE of this false (yet common) statement and recognizing it as such does not violate this policy does it? Maybe it was the WAY I chose to explain it that was misleading.

Lies like that shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. It's not true, you can even check snopes.com

[edit] Golf in Scots

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)

[edit] Golf on the Moon

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)

I'm not completely convinced Al's hitting one Titleist on Luna qualifies as "golf", but maybe mention it.
He hit two balls. ref Darcyj (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
On another note, has anybody heard about the company that wants to build a golf club on Luna? Trekphiler 03:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Moreover, there's a huge question mark around this Moon travel as a lot of evidences tend to prove it was a worldwide hoax to intimidate the Russians and that actually, no one ever went up there.
The evidence supporting the occurrence of the Moon landings is much more abundant. Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations Darcyj (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This page has a problem -

- 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)


---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).

[edit] More Scoring

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)

[edit] Parochial POV

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)

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

[edit] Instructional text

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)

[edit] Rules nomenclature

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)

[edit] Removed

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)

[edit] Putting

  • 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.

[edit] Types of Putts

  • 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.

[edit] Oldest Course

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)

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 actually heard that Muirfield is the oldest course... any comment on that?

Muirfield is a comparitivly modern course founded in the late 19C

Boumphreyfr 17:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turf management

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)

Good for you! Mindman1 00:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
You're about 14 months late. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Types of poor shots - edits/deletes

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.

[edit] driving in age

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)

[edit] Putting redirect

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)
I also agree. There are many different ways this article could go, particularly given the recent developments in putting technique (claw grip) and equipment (belly putter).MichaelProcton 03:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] set of clubs can not be "easily" shared

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)


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.

[edit] Redirection items at top of page

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)

[edit] First Golf Course

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 )

[edit] Caddyshack reference unnecessary

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)

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

[edit] Golf Video Games

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 (True Swing Golf), and of course, Wii Sports: Golf. dogman15 23:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Different sets of tees

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)

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

[edit] Golf, the great sport.

Golf is a great sport for people who enjoy quiet, calm places to be around people. You never get sweaty so its a good thing, especially when played in the spring time when it's still cool. Not cold, not hot. Golf is also great when your in a family reunion and all of your co-workers are there and family members who also enjoy a little game of golf.

[edit] Picture

This is going to sound silly and a relatively minor point, but I would like to comment on the picture that shows a golf ball cut in half with what appears to be a condom next to it. I KNOW that it is indeed a coin, but the thumbnail is small enough that it can fool the casual reader. I've asked my friends to look at it and they agreed with me. Now, you can completely dismiss this post as irrelevant, and personally I wouldn't care one way or the other if the picture is kept. I just wanted to point something out that might have been overlooked. Perakhantu 07:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section revision

The old lead section read, Golf is a sport in which individual players or teams hit a ball into a hole using various clubs, and also is one of the few ball games that does not use a fixed standard playing area. It is defined in the Rules of Golf as "playing a ball with a club from the teeing ground into the hole by a stroke or successive strokes in accordance with the Rules." A team does not hit the ball; only one person at a time hits the ball. The person hitting the ball only uses one club at a time, not various clubs. The playing area is fixed with respect to a particular course and the statement is one of the few ball games seems more like an opinion rather than a fact that may be supported. Also, not all the strokes are from the teeing ground. Thus, I revised the lead section. -- Jreferee 16:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the lead section needs to be necessarily vague, as your revision, while technically correct, doesn't seem to read as smoothly to me as the previous version. Additionally, the precision of language in your revision, while again technically correct, doesn't need to be so. Also, I've never heard anyone say "putting hole" ever before. While I think that your ideas are valid, in my opinion the lead section should be a generalization on the least specific of terms, and the revision previous to yours accomplishes this nicely. Regards, Rahzel 19:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page Too Long

I don't profess to know much about golf so I am not going to comment on the content of the page, I just think it is a bit too long. I think that different aspects of golf in this article need to go in their own seperate pages so editing can be more specific and the discussion page of the 'Golf' article doesn't get ridiculously long. Anyone agree? Cls14 22:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

The history section is a bit of mess. Firstly, there's very little actual history but an awful lot about the "origin" or "invention" of golf. That sort of stuff is important but let's not confuse "history" with "origin". Secondly, the whole section is laughably pro-Chinese. They may have played a somewhat similar game with sticks and balls but that doesn't make it golf. The whole section is in desperate need of citations and a good tidy. Golfer45 17:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A few comments--I think you're right on a few points, but some others could use some clarification. I agree that the "history" section contains mostly information on the "origins" of Golf--perhaps the section name could be changed to "Origins of the Game" or something like that? The information in the section is still useful. Also, I'm not sure how the section is Pro-Chinese--could you perhaps point out what makes this section POV? I just see a proportionately equivalent (in size) section devoted to showing evidence of a golf-like ancient Chinese sport. Lastly, I agree that the whole section needs to be better cited. We can all help with that, though I'm not sure where to start for reliable, primary sources on the history/origins of golf. Thanks for your comments! Regards, Rahzel 17:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
To reach a compromise and show how many different cultures played something like it but maybe not "golf", would it be possible to just make a "Similar Games From Around the World" (working title can become anything, thats just all I could come up with) Use this section to highlight games that are/were in play, somewhat like it, but did not contribute directly to the form and function, or direction the sport took to become what we know today. Example- The Aztecs played a sport using rings mounted high up that they would throw balls through, now does that constitute basketball? No, because it in no way shaped the sport we play today. But it is an interesting fact that might deserve a side note, and not more. Same with this, golf credits its history in many wide and varying texts to the Scots or Brits. They have the biggest debate and most proof. In England, there is a stained glass window in the Gloucester Cathedral of a man resembling a golfer. And then the debate over if it was golf or "gowf" James IV banned. Simply stated modern golf has no historical ties to the chinese. If we put them in the history you would have to include every culture and even some cannibal tribe that knocked heads around with sticks as a game before dinner. Not to offend anyone, but if one counts, they all count.S.Bowers 21:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] School thing

I am doing a, I guess project, for my class. Is there any contriversies in golf? Any current issues revolving around the sport? --71.224.19.29 16:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Assistance please! Assistance! Reply asap! --71.224.19.29 16:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of interesting things about golf!!!!! (NOT)

[edit] Mark Twain

"Mark Twain's definition of golf was "a good walk spoiled."

This quote is often attributed to Mark Twain, but it is not verifiable--it does not appear in any of his known published works. As such, I don't think it should be cited here. Note also that the reference cited for this quote (http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/clemens.html) does not cite sources, and is therefore not a valid reference.131.107.0.73 19:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This site http://www.twainquotes.com/Golf.html, which does seem to be reputable, states "This quote has been attributed to Mark Twain, but until the attribution can be verified, the quote should not be regarded as authentic". So I agree with user 131.107.0.73. MDfoo 19:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
rm Twain as author. MDfoo 02:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Golf stands for..?

I'd heard somewhere that GOLF stood for Gentlemen Only Ladies Forbidden.. does that have any historical support? I mean I know it is a solid women's sport as well as a men's sport.. but .. is there any evidendence to support that acronym?

There is a discussion on this page regarding that conjecture. It has no historical support. -- Renesis (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

However, take a look at some Scottish club houses and you'll find out that they're exclusively accepting men inside.

[edit] Request for "golf apparel" section

This article doesn't seem to mention anything about golf apparel outside of gloves and shoes. The entire fashion element of golf seems very complex- hats, pants, visors, fashion-lines, sponsorship, etc... johnpseudo 19:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too long - consider splitting

I think the article is too long and unwieldy. Perhaps these sections should be trimmed and split into separate articles:

Perhaps also "injury prevention" and other sections. We don't need to cover every single aspect of the game in detail in this single article. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree JeopardyTempest 09:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Equipment: Pitchfork description is wrong, but does common venacular make OK??

I beleive the description of the pitchfork in the equipment section is wrong. A pitchfork is not a divot repair tool (although I have to agree it is called this from time to time--maybe so much so as to become accurate???). A divot is made by the contact of the golf club to the ground during a swing. A pitch mark is made by the contact of the ball onto the green. The pitchfork is used to repair pitch marks, not divots. Divots are fixed by the player by either replacing the sod displaced or pouring a small quantity of sand/seed into the divot, depending on the course policy. Also, I don't think I have ever seen a tee with a pitchfork built into it. How does that work? --StknCPA 00:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What would you suggest the section be called instead of pitchfork? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cost to Play is POV

The cost to play section of this article reads like it has a bias toward making golf sound uniquely elitist and expensive, without peer. This is ridiculous. There are other sports with expensive equipment and which the particant has to pay each time they "play." Skiing or snowboarding equipment is very expensive, and the participant has to purchase a lift ticket every time he "plays." There is status in having the "right" brands from the board itself to the sunglasses/goggles being worn. Street basketball players have shoes that cost hundreds of dollars, and there is definitely a "social" aspect of impressing peers by having the shoes (ie, Nike Air Jordans, etc.). Contrary to what is stated in the article about baseball gloves, I clearly remember snobbery over what brand baseball glove one had (it was Wilson when I was 8 or so, but Mizuno by the time I was 14 or 15). The point is, these factors are found in all sports while this article makes it sound like it is unique to golf. While mentioning that golf is expensive and perhaps making some factually based comparisons to other sports would be appropirate, as it stands, this section reads POV.--StknCPA 00:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree and I removed a large portion that was original research. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Injury Prevention" section should be removed

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and this section on how to avoid golf injuries should be removed. Comments? --ZimZalaBim talk 01:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Since no one has expressed opposition, I'm moving this section to Talk:Golf/Inury prevention. If someone wants to try to make a new article out of its content, be my guest (although I'm not sure it would fly). --ZimZalaBim talk 15:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Movies & Magazines

I see little value in these sections, as they seem to be bait for listcruft - any movie or magazine is being placed here, regardless of notability, applicability, etc. I propose these sections be removed. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that instead of removing these sections, they could be summarised into a "Media" section, or something of the like. The information would be summarised, with only a few examples of movies and magazines (the most well known ones). Grover (talk) 07:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I removed these sections and added some notable movies and magazines into the see also section. The list of movies/magazines can be found here if someone wants to convert into prose, but I dont think it merits a place in the article. Grover (talk)

[edit] Junior Golf

I added the Junior Golf section. Anyone know enough about junior golf programs to expand on the secton?

Theemianworm (talk) 04:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)TheemianwormTheemianworm (talk) 04:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The Junior golf section I dont think merits its own section. I tried to look for a spot to incorporate it but I found none. Since this is such a long article already, and it isn't as important as alot of the information here, I think that this section needs to be deleted. Any objections? Grover (talk) 07:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] shank

Hello, I noticed a small error in the definition of a shank (under 'Types of shots')

Current definition: "A shank occurs when the club strikes the ball close to the join between the shaft of the club and the club head, called the hosel, and thus flies at a sharp angle to the left of the intended direction (or to the right, for a left-handed player)."

It should say that the ball flies to the right of the intended direction for a right-handed player, and to the left for a left-handed player.

RobKiv (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Changed. When you see mistakes like these, you are welcome to make the change yourself. MDfoo (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hook/Slice Description

A severe curve to the left and downward is a hook. A hook certainly doesn't always curve downward, just because a ball has more of a sidespin orientation doesn't mean that it is going to drop down out the sky

while a severe curve away and upward is a slice.  Once again the reverse of above holds true.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.109.66 (talk) 06:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Penalty section

Under the penalty section there is an error. No disqualification will occur from signing for a higher score, only for a lower one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.26.82 (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right. I will change that. Rule 6-6.d. reads "Wrong Score for Hole The competitor is responsible for the correctness of the score recorded for each hole on his score card. If he returns a score for any hole lower than actually taken, he is disqualified. If he returns a score for any hole higher than actually taken, the score as returned stands." MDfoo (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Swinging The Club

I removed the paragraph about Mo Normans swing theories. There were no references to it's claims, and there is probably not enough space in Wikipedia to describe all the various swing theories that are or have been popular. WhaleyTim (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)