Talk:Golf/Archive 3

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 )

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Too long - consider splitting

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

~~"Anatomy of a golf course" --> Golf course~~ Done. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Hitting a golf ball" --> Golfing mechanics (or something like that; understand, however, that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide~~ Done.Username 1 (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Equipment" --> Golf equipment~~ Done. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]