Hole-in-one witnesses

Bubb, I totally agree with asking for witnesses to prove they had a 1, then not printing them. Extraneous line of text, easily cuttable. All you're really doing is fact-checking, though if someone really wanted they could certainly make up two false names for that as well.

We don't tend to ask for witnesses because we know the people phoning/e-mailing in from the courses and can trust them. Your process simply takes it a step further; a wise choice if you're in a bigger centre.

 

I was on a road trip in Sacramento a few months ago and saw this story in the Bee. Allegedly, three guys hit holes-in-one on consecutive swings last year. I'm a bit skeptical, just like a lot of other people, but it's a cool story:


BYLINE: Steve Pajak Bee Staff Writer

BODY:A year later, they're happy it happened.

And nobody made another hole in one.

That's the latest on Bob Fleming, Marc Arcuri and Dan Condie, the three Sacramento golfers who last April 13 rocked the golf world with their claims of holes in one on three consecutive swings.

Count the witness, Dave Schumacher, in that group, too.

"Without question, it was a good thing for all four of us," Fleming, 56, said. "It brought us closer together. We will always have this connection."

To commemorate the anniversary and a break in the rain, the four returned to Antelope Greens last Thursday. When they reached the tee at No. 15, the 108-yard par-3 where they say they overcame astronomical odds, they paused.

The tee was in the same place, but the pin was back right instead of front left.

"We all reminisced a little bit," Arcuri, 53, said. "We had a little chuckle and decided it would be best if we didn't make another ace."

Recreating the hitting order, all four hit the green. All four made two-putt pars from within 12 to 20 feet. Solid but hardly thunderclap worthy.

A television reporter from an NBC affiliate in San Jose who covered the story while working in Sacramento a year ago had planned to document the reunion, Condie, 47, said. Mudslides brought on by unseasonably wet weather trumped the coverage. Not exactly the snub "Today" show co-host Matt Lauer gave the group a year ago when he rejected a planned national segment because of his own skepticism, but a tad ironic in a full-circle kind of way.

"I still get the feeling that lots of people don't believe it," said Condie, who is disappointed that there's been no official recognition of the achievement, estimated at odds of 27 trillion to 1. The "Guinness Book of World Records" wasn't interested, and a much-talked-about plaque on the tee at Antelope's No. 15 hasn't materialized.

Schumacher, 63, the only member of the foursome not to ace No. 15 that day and the driving force behind a polygraph test in the weeks following that reinforced their claims, said the initial frustration of having to defend their integrity has waned.

"It was a great thing, all the skepticism aside," he said. "The biggest thing was just being there. I feel real fortunate. It was the most surreal moment of my life."

The feat is still a topic of conversation, but less and less as time passes. Condie, with two, is the only one of the four to make a hole in one since. He smiles every time he comes to the 15th hole, he said, but that's about it.

Fleming is appreciative of the support he received from his inner circle of golf acquaintances. Forty-six years of straight shooting in the game he loves did him some good, he said.

"Although we're still proud of the accomplishment, it's kind of in the past now."

 

first off, if they're having to make 12-20 foot putts for par after HITTING the green, that's a testiment to their skills. No way should all four of them not be able to lag a putt closer than 12 feet.

secondly, I don't think three golf balls can fit in a standard cup with a standard stick in it?

 

one of these days, pencil dick will get to witness another ace by 2underpar. It will be worth six bets -- winning the hole (one bet), closest to the pin (one bet), and the ace (eagle = 4 bets).
Of course, he won't pay up.

 

We run them only if there are witnesses. Most of the clubs that report (fax) them to us include witnesses.
We run them in agate-sized type along with the Little League and Youth Soccer results.
Question for those that only run them if they get them from the clubs -- if the club sends witnesses do you run the witnesses?

 

I think the story meant they two-putted from 12-20 feet, meaning that's how long their birdie putts were. Their par putts could have all been an inch. It doesn't say.

 

I threw this out to my fellow golf-playing deskers (which means all of them tonight), and was roundly booed. The consensus is if you're trying to find somewhere to save one line of agate type, look somewhere else. Running the witnesses doesn't hurt a doggone thing.

Hey ... in the weekly ATP tournament, how about instead of:

SINGLES
First Round

You go:

SINGLES, First Round

 

moddy - when's the last time someone actually called a witness to varify?

 

I can't believe this thread is up to four pages on something as trivial as running hole-in-one witnesses.
How about this: do you run the umpires with the MLB boxscores? If so, why? if not, why not?

 

Well, it's not like it stayed on a straight track discussing that, and only that.

 

We do, because they're there. ;D