Was Ben Hogan cheating?

[Newby]

Hoganfan, Good point on R&A rules, could be totally different.

 

The USGA and R&A Rules are exactly the same except for some spelling errors in the USGA version.

 

They write and publish them jointly.

The USGA administer them in the USA, its protectorates and Mexico. The R&A in the rest of the world.

Sure about that? I don't believe that was the case back in the 50's- not positive though.

 

The joint rules were first published in 1952.

[Jimmy Mac]

[quote name='TWshoot67' timestamp='1312837244' post='3463242']
[quote name='Staffer' timestamp='1312827152' post='3462675']

[u][size="4"] [i][b]Implying that Ben Hogan - or any other golfer - cheated is not something one does without knowing the facts! Questions can be asked without involving names if one is unsure. This is a sport for gentlemen[/b][/i][/size][/u]


[/quote]
EXCELLENT POINT!
[/quote]

I would not disagree with that at all. I asked a question about the rules based on the facts put forth in Mr. Hoopdies* book. I believe there has been quite a bit of discussion on this board regarding specific, clearly-named professional golfers and whether an action of theirs was outside the rules of golf. What's the difference here?


[i]* still protecting those innocents[/i]

[Sawgrass]

14-3/13 Hand Warmer

 

Q. A player uses a device to warm his hands during a round. Is the player in breach of Rule 14-3?

 

A. No. Although a hand warmer is an artificial device, its use to warm the hands is traditionally accepted, and Exception 2 to Rule 14-3 applies.

 

http://www.usga.org/...lf/Decision-14/

 

 

BTW - Implying that Ben Hogan - or any other golfer - cheated is not something one does without knowing the facts! Questions can be asked without involving names if one is unsure. This is a sport for gentlemen.

 

 

EXCELLENT POINT!

 

It might have been an excellent point if the OP had in fact implied that Hogan had cheated. The OP simply openly asked a question. I didn't take any offense at his reasonable confusion about the issue. The rules change, and that makes the challenge of understanding the rules all the more challenging.

 

Let's not beat him up.

[Hawkeye77]

Unfortunately, like many, the OP went for the more sensational thread title to get attention which taints the claimed innocence of the question.

[Sawgrass]

The fact that the OP even raised the possibility that the rule had changed in his opening post doesn't make him innocent enough? Tough crowd.

[Hawkeye77]

Just a pet peeve as far as thread titles is concerned.

[MadGolfer76]

Fair enough question. Only "sensational" to those who have difficulty admitting their heroes may be fallible in some way, or might be capable of just making an honest mistake. I believe that, as many times as that book has been read, someone in the years since might have raised the point to the USGA or RNA, who likely considered it a non-issue.

[Hawkeye77]

[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1312863751' post='3464776']
Fair enough question. Only "sensational" to those who have difficulty admitting their heroes may be fallible in some way, or might be capable of just making an honest mistake. I believe that, as many times as that book has been read, someone in the years since might have raised the point to the USGA or RNA, who likely considered it a non-issue.
[/quote]

Wrong. Hogan has never been a "hero" of mine. And, of course the USGA or R[u]&[/u]A would consider it a non-issue, because it wasn't against any rule.

[MadGolfer76]

[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1312864125' post='3464799']
[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1312863751' post='3464776']
Fair enough question. Only "sensational" to those who have difficulty admitting their heroes may be fallible in some way, or might be capable of just making an honest mistake. I believe that, as many times as that book has been read, someone in the years since might have raised the point to the USGA or RNA, who likely considered it a non-issue.
[/quote]

Wrong. Hogan has never been a "hero" of mine. And, of course the USGA or R[u]&[/u]A would consider it a non-issue, because it wasn't against any rule.





[/quote]

Yeah...RNA = "Royal n' Ancient." I think my way flows a bit better. lol. Seriously, I am tired.

[lander215]

[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1312862401' post='3464727']
Just a pet peeve as far as thread titles is concerned.
[/quote]


Well...since you chose to correct MadGolfer76....allow me to correct you..."thread titles [u]are[/u] concerned".

Just a pet peeve of mine.

You're welcome.

[Jimmy Mac]

Having never met Hogan and only knowing his personality through a bit of reading his writing and what others have written about him, I get the impression my question asked directly to him would have earned a stern look likely followed with a smile and a thoughtful explanation of rule changes over the years that would have ended in "young man" and a shake of his head.

I also would expect that if someone put forward to him that he was without fault and deserved a spot upon a pedestal, Mr. Hogan would have fallen upon the floor laughing and held such a comment in utter disdain.

I likely would have been invited in for a cup of tea and a conversation on many other gaps in my golf knowledge, the others probably would have been left to their own devices on the front porch.

Yes, I didn't know the exact facts of the evolution of the rules of golf upon my posting. But frankly if I had researched all of this to the nth degree, there would have been no need for me to post at all. It's WHY I posted. Really, given that this is a "rules of golf" sub-forum, and there IS a book with all the rules in it, it's safe to assume there would never be a single posting if everyone did their due diligence.

[larrybud]

One other thing unrelated to the rule is that once a ball's core gets cold, it takes a couple of hours for it to warm throughout. A hand warmer isn't going to do squat in this case, IMO. Once the temps drop around here, I'll take my thermal laser thingy out to the course and measure the surface temp of the ball and see what I get to confirm.

To the OP: It was an excellent and valid observation of a piece of Hogan's book.

God forbid anybody questions anything Hogan ever did on this forum (to the point of one member suggesting the thread be deleted just for the mere question!!!) On top of that, we probably all learned something about the rules.

[Sawgrass]

Hoganfan, Good point on R&A rules, could be totally different.

 

The USGA and R&A Rules are exactly the same except for some spelling errors in the USGA version.

 

They write and publish them jointly.

The USGA administer them in the USA, its protectorates and Mexico. The R&A in the rest of the world.

Sure about that? I don't believe that was the case back in the 50's- not positive though.

 

The joint rules were first published in 1952.

 

Newby, it's my understanding that all the rules and all of the decisions are exactly the same now, with the exception of the fact that we Americans take the liberty of spelling some words differently as you humorously point out.

 

But if I'm not mistaken this totally parallel rules agreement was not put into place in 1952, since my memory tells me that the golf ball's size restriction was different in each area for some time after that. I don't know, maybe there were other differences too until some later time. Am I wrong -- was everything identical since 1952? Or does "joint rules" mean something else to you?

[Hawkeye77]

1952 issued "uniform" rules, but certain aspects of appendices, including equipment, and local rules were still different. Supposedly all uniform as of 2000, although may still be difference regarding some prize money issues. Can't think of the name, but there's a good website under a guy's name that traces and analyzes the evolution of the rules, that's where I came by the above info.

[Hawkeye77]

Nope, the site is "barryrhodes" , but that is not the one I've been to before where you can actually read the rules as they've evolved.

[Newby]

Is this it ?

[url="http://www.ruleshistory.com/"]http://www.ruleshistory.com/[/url]

[Staffer]

[quote name='larrybud' timestamp='1312899519' post='3465825']
One other thing unrelated to the rule is that once a ball's core gets cold, it takes a couple of hours for it to warm throughout. A hand warmer isn't going to do squat in this case, IMO. Once the temps drop around here, I'll take my thermal laser thingy out to the course and measure the surface temp of the ball and see what I get to confirm.

To the OP: It was an excellent and valid observation of a piece of Hogan's book.

God forbid anybody questions anything Hogan ever did on this forum (to the point of one member suggesting the thread be deleted just for the mere question!!!) On top of that, we probably all learned something about the rules.
[/quote]

Oh, go ahead and question Hogan all you want, but check your facts before implying that someone - anyone - is a cheat.

Now, theres some etiquette for you =)

[Hawkeye77]

[quote name='Newby' timestamp='1312906953' post='3466380']
Is this it ?

[url="http://www.ruleshistory.com/"]http://www.ruleshistory.com/[/url]
[/quote]

Yes, thanks.

[Hawkeye77]

[quote name='lander215' timestamp='1312889126' post='3465306']
[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1312862401' post='3464727']
Just a pet peeve as far as thread titles is concerned.
[/quote]


Well...since you chose to correct MadGolfer76....allow me to correct you..."thread titles [u]are[/u] concerned".

Just a pet peeve of mine.

You're welcome.
[/quote]

Thanks. I've got about 900+ other posts out there. Find 10 spelling or unintentional grammar or usage errors, I'll send you $10.

[lander215]

[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1312910652' post='3466645']
[quote name='lander215' timestamp='1312889126' post='3465306']
[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1312862401' post='3464727']
Just a pet peeve as far as thread titles is concerned.
[/quote]


Well...since you chose to correct MadGolfer76....allow me to correct you..."thread titles [u]are[/u] concerned".

Just a pet peeve of mine.

You're welcome.
[/quote]

Thanks. I've got about 900+ other posts out there. Find 10 spelling or unintentional grammar or usage errors, I'll send you $10.
[/quote]

If you're going to dish it out, be prepared to take it as well. You can keep your $10, I have plenty, thanks.

[Jimmy Mac]

[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1312910652' post='3466645']

Thanks. I've got about 900+ other posts out there. Find 10 spelling or unintentional grammar or usage errors, I'll send you $10.
[/quote]

Wow, I would never make that bet...I'm a grammatical mess.


"Thanks." (incomplete sentence, no subject, no verb, just a word.)

"I've got about" (should be "I have about", got is redundant)

"about 900+" (should be worded either "over 900" or "about 900", to both give a range "about" and to include "+" is redundant)

"Find 10 spelling" (should be "Find ten spelling", numerals under twenty should be written out in text.)

"unintentional grammar" (should be hyphenated as it is an adjunctive phrase describing "errors")

"spelling or unintentional grammar or usage errors" (should be phrased "spelling, unintentional-grammar, or usage errors", it's improper to use "or" twice in a listing of options)

"send you $10." (should be written "send you ten dollars" again numerals under twenty should be written out.)


Dang it, only seven. Yet again I am a loser ... luckily, I'm prepared as my loser status already been established by my poor golf game.

[Hawkeye77]

[quote name='Jimmy Mac' timestamp='1312912007' post='3466752']
[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1312910652' post='3466645']
Thanks. I've got about 900+ other posts out there. Find 10 spelling or unintentional grammar or usage errors, I'll send you $10.
[/quote]

Wow, I would never make that bet...I'm a grammatical mess.


"Thanks." (incomplete sentence, no subject, no verb, just a word.)

"I've got about" (should be "I have about", got is redundant)

"about 900+" (should be worded either "over 900" or "about 900", to both give a range "about" and to include "+" is redundant)

"Find 10 spelling" (should be "Find ten spelling", numerals under twenty should be written out in text.)

"unintentional grammar" (should be hyphenated as it is an adjunctive phrase describing "errors")

"spelling or unintentional grammar or usage errors" (should be phrased "spelling, unintentional-grammar, or usage errors", it's improper to use "or" twice in a listing of options)

"send you $10." (should be written "send you ten dollars" again numerals under twenty should be written out.)


Dang it, only seven. Yet again I am a loser ... luckily, I'm prepared as my loser status already been established by my poor golf game.
[/quote]

Sorry, the offer was only extended to Miss Crump. And, notice the caveat "intentional", all of the above were intentional in the interest of internet shorthand. I don't pay easily, but nice try. The glaring error noted above "are" vs. "is", was not intentional, however, just me being dumb.

[Jimmy Mac]

Oh, no problem.

I totally understand how the purposeful double use of intentionally redundant, repeating words used more than once results in an abbreviated shorthand for the world wide web of internets. I frequently do that shortening often to usually truncate my sentences I want to be shorter. You know, intentionally on purpose.

Enough fun with writing, time to dive back into some reading. Perhaps Mr. Hogan's Book of Wisdom to see if my lousy, screwy swing (deserving of an intentional redundancy) has any hope for improvement. Of course, that's how this whole mess started ...

[Sawgrass]

The following observation will give you some idea as to just how odd I am, but I'm enjoying this thread and this irrelevant debate. I commend Jimmy Mac and Hawkeye77 for seemingly staying civil while having their amusing argument.

Here's some more food: I believe one can make an argument that Hawkeye's original sentence, "Just a pet peeve as far as thread titles is concerned" can be judged as acceptable usage if he meant, "Just a pet peeve as far as [the topic of] thread titles is concerned." I'm not sure of that, but I'll raise it anyway.

And Jimmy Mac, I believe your criticism of Hawkeye's failing to hyphenate "unintentional grammar" is a subjective rather than an objective call. I believe the proper useage takes into consideration whether the reader might or might not read the phrase as intended. Commonly used compound adjectives, for instance, do not always require a hyphen.

In any case, at least I am having fun here. I hope I have interpreted both of your moods correctly. If instead you are both about to duke it out, let's just pretend I was talking to myself. I'd prefer not to get hit.

[Jimmy Mac]

I can only speak for myself in a rather garbled manner as my tongue has been firmly wedged into my cheek by the foot I've crammed into my mouth.

I have no place lecturing anyone on posting grammar as I am quite prone to err myself. I can't imagine Hawk was serious in his offer – nobody posts over 900 messages without a few mistakes. My breakdown of the sentences was done solely for the humor of it. I am certain there are individuals with liberal arts degrees that'll rip my analysis to shreds.

As for the issue of hyphenation, it's a tricky one. What I understand to be the current thinking is: if there's an "ly" in one of the modifiers, you do not need to hyphenate. If there isn't –you should.

i.e. commonly used adjectives vs. common-use adjectives

The battle in our office is over the comma before the "and" at the end of a list. Some are adamant that it should be there while others are prepared to watch it fade off into the literary sunset.

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='Jimmy Mac' timestamp='1312926781' post='3467705']
I can only speak for myself in a rather garbled manner as my tongue has been firmly wedged into my cheek by the foot I've crammed into my mouth.

I have no place lecturing anyone on posting grammar as I am quite prone to err myself. I can't imagine Hawk was serious in his offer – nobody posts over 900 messages without a few mistakes. My breakdown of the sentences was done solely for the humor of it. I am certain there are individuals with liberal arts degrees that'll rip my analysis to shreds.

As for the issue of hyphenation, it's a tricky one. What I understand to be the current thinking is: if there's an "ly" in one of the modifiers, you do not need to hyphenate. If there isn't –you should.

i.e. commonly used adjectives vs. common-use adjectives

The battle in our office is over the comma before the "and" at the end of a list. Some are adamant that it should be there while others are prepared to watch it fade off into the literary sunset.
[/quote]

That's a much appreciated analysis. Though it may in fact be a much-appreciated analysis.

Edit: I believe the New York Times style Guide supports my above use of "much appreciated" vs. "much-appreciated", though I don't have it here at home and can't be sure. I don't know why I refer to it anyway, it seems to be the only thing they have to say that I respect these days.

[Jimmy Mac]

No problem.

Well, I'm off for 18 with my buddy Kim Jong Il he's played over about 900+ rounds and never taken worse than a 61. Well, at least not intentionally.

Have a great evening all.

[lander215]

[quote name='Sawgrass' timestamp='1312924874' post='3467609']
The following observation will give you some idea as to just how odd I am, but I'm enjoying this thread and this irrelevant debate. I commend Jimmy Mac and Hawkeye77 for seemingly staying civil while having their amusing argument.

Here's some more food: I believe one can make an argument that Hawkeye's original sentence, "Just a pet peeve as far as thread titles is concerned" can be judged as acceptable usage if he meant, "Just a pet peeve as far as [the topic of] thread titles is concerned." I'm not sure of that, but I'll raise it anyway.

And Jimmy Mac, I believe your criticism of Hawkeye's failing to hyphenate "unintentional grammar" is a subjective rather than an objective call. I believe the proper useage takes into consideration whether the reader might or might not read the phrase as intended. Commonly used compound adjectives, for instance, do not always require a hyphen.

In any case, at least I am having fun here. I hope I have interpreted both of your moods correctly. If instead you are both about to duke it out, let's just pretend I was talking to myself. I'd prefer not to get hit.
[/quote]

Sorry...as this is a golf forum dealing with rules, a putt conceded can not be taken back. He admitted he was in err so that is the ruling. Unfortunately he then chose to delve into petty references to long ago (and non-existant) places and people after exhibiting the exact behaviour he now is festering on about.

Perhaps he still carries one bullet in his shirt pocket?

Now...just so I exhibit proper etiquette....FORE!

[Hawkeye77]

I don't chew my cabbage twice, or should I say tick a lock (without hyphens)? I don't have one bullet in my pocket, but I did rub a redhead for good luck before playing golf this evening. Perhaps a movie over to Mount Pilot tomorrow night.

I like the alternate explanation for my grammatical error, but can't in good conscience claim it as my intent. Civil is the mood, however.