Is it time for a real-world alternative to the USGA?

[boil3rmak3r]

Play by whatever rules you want in golf.  No one cares.

This is the 3rd or 4th time I've seen a statement like this posted and it surprises me that so many are saying this... We all know there are MANY folks on this site that would ridicule someone if they didn't golf by the rules (eg. If someone is still anchoring after the new rule kicks in). They'd be described as "playing some game that resembles golf." Plus, many of us amateurs want to play in our club's tournaments. That means we have to keep a handicap. For those two reasons, the decisions the USGA certainly impact most of us amateurs.

[Strandly]

Yeah I can't think of almost any sports rules that are different between amateur and pro.  College football the clock stops on first downs or maybe even every play or something weird where NFL play doesn't but that's all I can think of off-hand.

[isukgolf]

I am confused by your post.  Other than one foot in bounds, shorter quarters and OT rules, how is football really different at the other levels.  Or basketball? Or baseball?

Play by whatever rules you want in golf.  No one cares.  But don't change the official rules of golf because you don't want to abide by them.  That is what the USGA and the R&A; are about.

Boogielicious, thanks for you feedback.

Football ... one foot in bounds versus both in ... Knee down with no contact versus must have contact ...

Basketball - 3 point line ... possession arrow  ...

Baseball - aluminum bats ... 60 ft baseline vs 90 foot ... size of ball, etc ... millions enjoy a game that is roughly like major league baseball ... kids are introduced with t-ball ...

My point was not to list/debate the different rules, it was to say there are rules differences ... nothing more

Also I am all for the USGA having rules for the players that make living at the sport.  Those are needed and I support that.

But I am also a proponent for rules that would help play amongst recreational players ... I think you might be surprised by how close inline they might be with the existing rules ...

If everyone went by the "just because you don't like it, don't try and change it" logic, then nothing would ever change

I am fully aware that not everyone shares those views .. but I do enjoy hearing different ideas for change ...

[tucsonsean]

It's not just equipment--you're right, that doesn't really affect anything but the edge it took off getting my 'new' Pings. Some of the rules, like OB, are hard to adhere to on tight, crowded municipal courses. (Even Steve Stricker might be on my side after being OB twice on the same hole at Merion. ) We do what seems fair and move on, but I'm playing the rest of the round knowing ican't submit the score for my handicap. (and on a crowded Sunday I won't hit a provisional or return to the tee, where two more foursomes are leaning on their clubs) Frankly, gentlemen, the USGA hierarchy is hidebound. Despite the tremendous good they do for the game, it wouldn't hurt them to make a 7:08 tee time at some of the goat tracks I play and see how the other half lives.

[boogielicious]

This is the 3rd or 4th time I've seen a statement like this posted and it surprises me that so many are saying this... We all know there are MANY folks on this site that would ridicule someone if they didn't golf by the rules (eg. If someone is still anchoring after the new rule kicks in). They'd be described as "playing some game that resembles golf."

Plus, many of us amateurs want to play in our club's tournaments. That means we have to keep a handicap.

For those two reasons, the decisions the USGA certainly impact most of us amateurs.

We mean that it does not matter to us whether you play by the rules or not as long as you don't post it as official for handicap and play in tournaments.

[boogielicious]

Boogielicious, thanks for you feedback.

Football ... one foot in bounds versus both in ... Knee down with no contact versus must have contact ...

Basketball - 3 point line ... possession arrow  ...

Baseball - aluminum bats ... 60 ft baseline vs 90 foot ... size of ball, etc ... millions enjoy a game that is roughly like major league baseball ... kids are introduced with t-ball ...

My point was not to list/debate the different rules, it was to say there are rules differences ... nothing more

Also I am all for the USGA having rules for the players that make living at the sport.  Those are needed and I support that.

But I am also a proponent for rules that would help play amongst recreational players ... I think you might be surprised by how close inline they might be with the existing rules ...

If everyone went by the "just because you don't like it, don't try and change it" logic, then nothing would ever change

I am fully aware that not everyone shares those views .. but I do enjoy hearing different ideas for change ...

Thanks for your reply.  I would liken those difference to different tee boxes in golf.  They are there more for younger players to protect them or to make it easier for younger players.  We can play different tee boxes depending on our ability.  The groove rule does not apply to amateur for quite some time.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

Play by whatever rules you want in golf.  No one cares.

This is the 3rd or 4th time I've seen a statement like this posted and it surprises me that so many are saying this... We all know there are MANY folks on this site that would ridicule someone if they didn't golf by the rules (eg. If someone is still anchoring after the new rule kicks in). They'd be described as "playing some game that resembles golf."

Plus, many of us amateurs want to play in our club's tournaments. That means we have to keep a handicap.

For those two reasons, the decisions the USGA certainly impact most of us amateurs.

Those of us who do understand and do play by the rules rarely "ridicule" anyone.  We will correct incorrect statements of belief about how a rule is applied, but if a player wants to ignore the Rules of Golf when he's not in a competition, have at it.

What many of us have trouble understanding is how this belief arose that golf is somehow more fun when played by imaginative rules.  Is it really more satisfying to boast about that first score under 90, or under 80, when the rules you play by change depending on which group of friends you happen to be playing with?  Does such a score really have any meaning outside of that little group?  How do you compare rounds when today's round is played with preferred lies, while tomorrow's group says you get 4 Mulligans per side?

I would never find such a record to be meaningful to me.  I know that my personal best is a true personal best, played under all of the rules, not just the ones I like.  My 5 or 6 scores each year in the 70's are legitimate because I played every lie as required by the rules, counted every penalty.  The same is true of any scores in the 90's - honestly earned and honestly recorded.  For me that is a source of great pleasure, and contrary to many opinions, that is part of what provides the challenge which makes golf fun for me.

On the rare occasions when I don't play to the rules for whatever reason, I can immediately forget the round, and if I happened to play well, I will regret having taken any liberties because it does result in a wasted 4 hours as far as any real impact is concerned.  For that reason, those rounds are few and far between for me.

[NJpatbee]

I do not agree with some of the USGA Rules of Golf, but believe that we need either the USGA, or some other entity, to maintain and protect the integrity of the game.  I also play by the rules since I want to track my progress against a formal standard along with most other golfers.

The USGA has overseen quite a bit of progress in equipment, and I believe has been fairly accomodating to those changes.  I took up the game at age 40 with hand me down perssimons, and now drive the ball 25 yards longer with 460cc of titanium at age 62.  Do I believe that the USGA is always right? Of course not, and I have let my feelings be known about "lateral hazards" on other sections of this site.  I am also surprised to learn that the USGA Directors all come only from private clubs which is a severely obsolete concept.

But, in my opinion, the game does need a governing body to help define and protect the formal game of golf.

[David in FL]

It's not just equipment--you're right, that doesn't really affect anything but the edge it took off getting my 'new' Pings. Some of the rules, like OB, are hard to adhere to on tight, crowded municipal courses. (Even Steve Stricker might be on my side after being OB twice on the same hole at Merion. ) We do what seems fair and move on, but I'm playing the rest of the round knowing ican't submit the score for my handicap. (and on a crowded Sunday I won't hit a provisional or return to the tee, where two more foursomes are leaning on their clubs) Frankly, gentlemen, the USGA hierarchy is hidebound. Despite the tremendous good they do for the game, it wouldn't hurt them to make a 7:08 tee time at some of the goat tracks I play and see how the other half lives.

I'm assuming you're talking about stroke and distance for OB?  The rule isn't hard to "adhere to".......you just don't like the penalty itself.  Me neither, but I don't blame the severity of the penalty on the USGA, but on the knucklehead who hit the cruddy shot completely off the golf course in the first place.

The whole purpose behind the provisional is to help speed up play.  Playing on a crowded Sunday is exactly when you should be most concerned about hitting one.

[tucsonsean]

There are very few rules I have a problem with actually. And few rulings I disagree with. But would anchored putting be out if Tiger were doing it (after all, when is a 300lb boulder a loose impediment? When you have 30 fans eagerto move it for you). Not picking on Tiger--when is a wheeled crane an immovable object? When it's Ernie Els lining up the shot. If you want to grow the game, you need to openly acknowledge that a pro and an elite amateur are different golfers than someone struggling to break 90 or even 100. I won't feel excluded if you acknowledge that I need more of abreak equipment-wise. At least I won't feel any worse than now, a so-so hacker on the fringes of 'true golf, ' using equipment the USGA grudgingly deems permissible until they 'revisit' the issues in 2016 and 2020. If I did have a vote, I would vote to discriminate between pros/elite golfers and the recreational sort.

[tucsonsean]

Of course, I meant differentiate not discriminate. And I wonder what ruling the Monday qualifier playing with a marker would have had to deal with if he had had a boulder interfering with his shot.

[iacas]

If you want to grow the game, you need to openly acknowledge that a pro and an elite amateur are different golfers than someone struggling to break 90 or even 100. I won't feel excluded if you acknowledge that I need more of abreak equipment-wise.

If you want more of a break, take it! Nothing is stopping you. Police won't come out and arrest you. Play the illegal balls or clubs, or kick your ball. Just don't tell us that you broke 90… the same way a home run hit off a Cy Young award winner is not the same as one hit in your softball beer league.

And seriously, people need to get over the Tiger Woods "boulder" thing. He was smart at the time - it met the criteria of a loose impediment, and satisfied published Decisions:

23-1/2

Large Stone Removable Only with Much Effort

Q. A player's ball lies in the rough directly behind a loose stone the size of a watermelon. The stone can be removed only with much effort. Is it a loose impediment which may be removed?

A. Yes. Stones of any size (not solidly embedded) are loose impediments and may be removed, provided removal does not unduly delay play (Rule 6-7 ).

23-1/3

Assistance in Removing Large Loose Impediment

Q. May spectators, caddies, fellow-competitors, etc. assist a player in removing a large loose impediment?

A. Yes.

Also, if you scroll past the incredibly large title… http://www.usga.org/news/2009/january/10-Years-After-Tiger-s-Loosem-Impediment-Ruling-At-Phoenix-Open/ sheds some light on the situation.

[tucsonsean]

Ah, there it is: the mean-spirited vitriol I sort of expected. My handicap is honest and I play by the rules of golf. My question was out of curiosity, and my curiosity was satisfied. I'm bowing out of this discussion. Thanks to everyone who supplied constructive input.

[iacas]

Ah, there it is: the mean-spirited vitriol I sort of expected.

Sorry, but nothing said has been anything of the sort.

[isukgolf]

If you want more of a break, take it! Nothing is stopping you. Police won't come out and arrest you. Play the illegal balls or clubs, or kick your ball. Just don't tell us that you broke 90… the same way a home run hit off a Cy Young award winner is not the same as one hit in your softball beer league.

If I may have a different view ... I would actually say the beer league home run is just as good, if not better ... as is one hit by 5 year off a tee stand ... Not everyone plays at a pro level ... some of us have a day job, but still enjoy those moments of a good hit ... even if it is not with a wooden bat, and fences are not major league regulation ... in fact, its a million dollar business that many people enjoy ... they enjoy it so much they are willing to pay hard earn money to go sit in a stadium and watch someone hit one off a Cy Young pitcher.

[Dave2512]

Not sure why being able to enjoy golf more should mean making it easier. Being able to play to your personal best is enough. If golfers, especially male golfers, were that concerned with making the game easier with the hopes it would be more enjoyable they would move up a set of tees or two. Likely wouldn't face as many situations where they would need exceptions to the rules to help them out.

[ScouseJohnny]

I've often pondered this "tee it forward" business - especially with when I read about recommendations to go forward two tees.

I mostly play public courses (in the U.S.).

For the most part, these courses have Blue tees (all the way back); White tees (which I have always regarded as the men's non-tournament tee); yellow tees (seniors/juniors); Red tees (ladies).

I always play off the white tees, unless I'm in a comp which mandates the blue tees. I'm assuming the white tee is the correct tee for someone of my handicap?

Another English person raised this question earlier this month, as I recall - on most English courses there are only ever three tees: men's tournament (usually white), men's regular tees (usually yellow, so far as I recall), and ladies/juniors (red). When I moved to the US I just started teeing it from the first set of tees forward from the tournament tees - which seemed right, as that's where practically every other male golfer seemed to play from.

But is wrong or old-fashioned to think about tee colors with regard to the characteristics of particular golfers? In other words, should it be yellow tee for anyone whose ability suggests that they should be playing off that tee, rather than yellow tee = kids and seniors (outside of tournaments, of course, when the forward tees are normally restricted to players based upon some sort of age + handicap arithmetic).

[isukgolf]

I've often pondered this "tee it forward" business - especially with when I read about recommendations to go forward two tees. I mostly play public courses (in the U.S.). For the most part, these courses have Blue tees (all the way back); White tees (which I have always regarded as the men's non-tournament tee); yellow tees (seniors/juniors); Red tees (ladies). I always play off the white tees, unless I'm in a comp which mandates the blue tees. I'm assuming the white tee is the correct tee for someone of my handicap? But is wrong or old-fashioned to think about tee colors with regard to the characteristics of particular golfers? In other words, should it be yellow tee for anyone whose ability suggests that they should be playing off that tee, rather than yellow tee = kids and seniors (outside of tournaments, of course, when the forward tees are normally restricted to players based upon some sort of age + handicap arithmetic).

I have thought the exact same thing ... I never play farther back than the whites regardless of what the group does ... Unfortunately people will say the course is "too" sort for them ... If I am still playing 90+ then course length is no an issue for me ... Sadly my second shot is just behind the ladies tees ... :-D But I like where you are going with that thought ... If you think about it, it's "legal "way to have an advantage ... And similar to what Dave said as well ...