or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › TaylorMade and Titleist CEO's Speak Up about the USGA and Bifurcation of the Rules
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

TaylorMade and Titleist CEO's Speak Up about the USGA and Bifurcation of the Rules - Page 5

post #73 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

 

 

The following is the definition of Rule from the Rules of Golf.  Note in particular item's b and c.  All of the local rules used in PGA Tournaments conform to the Rules of golf.  Even in those rare instances where relief from a temporary immovable obstruction results in moving the ball closer to the hole, it is done for the sole reason that no other playable option is available.  Such rulings are made only in a case of extreme necessity, and as such are approved by the USGA.

 

Which is exactly what I said. Because they are allowing for them, for whatever reason, to breach the rules of golf.

 

How can you say that?  Approved local rule s ARE rules of golf, so how can they also be breaches?  And they are allowed for ANY competition, not just PGA Tour.  My Men's Club uses a couple of local rules from the list.  That doesn't change the Rules of Golf, it only addresses some local conditions which are not encountered on every course.   They are NOT breaches of rules, they are simply extensions to the rules which are applied for special or unusual circumstances.  Just like the allowance in most competitions and courses these days for using GPS or laser rangefinders.  They are not a breach of Rule 14 when implemented, they are an extension of it.  They can't be both a rule and a breach of a rule at the same time.  Local Rules ARE rules.  When a tournament specifies conditions of the competition, those conditions are rules too (like the one ball condition which the Tour uses).

 

If you want to argue that the PGA Tour takes the implementation farther than the original intent of the local rule, I won't dispute that.  They use the local rule allowing the extension of the embedded ball ball rule from closely mowed areas to through the green as a standard policy.  I disagree with that.  It should only be used when actual conditions warrant, but the Tour tends to baby its members bit too much.

post #74 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mordan View Post

 

The Open is run by the R&A and will obviously stick to the Rules of Golf. The US Open is run by the USGA and thus will also follow the Rules of Golf. I'm obviously guessing here, but I think the Masters is more likely to take the conservative line and stick with the Rules of Golf rather than follow the breakaway version of the PGA Tour. That's at least 2 of the majors, and possibly 3 that won't allow anchoring putters. How many players are going to exclude themselves from 2 or perhaps 3 majors by playing that way?


I am sure The Open will stick with the rules approved by the R&A.   But as I said, it has only been a major on the PGA Tour for less than 20 years.   Before it was on the PGA Tour, many of the best made the trip over to play it.    Should the PGA Tour decide to implement their own rules, I could still see players going over for that tournament, whether it counts toward the tour schedule or not.    The US Open is owned by the USGA, so they would obviously want the tournament to be run under USGA rules but that does not mean it has to count on the PGA Tour (like The Open used to not.)   Again, not having it count on the PGA Tour does not preclude tour players from participating if they so choose.   I feel pretty certain the PGA owns the PGA Championship, who runs/owns the rights to The Masters?  

 

And a better question is, which body negotiated the TV rights to the American events, the USGA or the PGA Tour?   Considering the amount of revenue involved, I am sure the sponsors, broadcast networks, etc..   and their opinions/decisions regarding this would come into  play as the PGA Tour mulls over what to do.

post #75 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by teamroper60 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mordan View Post

 

The Open is run by the R&A and will obviously stick to the Rules of Golf. The US Open is run by the USGA and thus will also follow the Rules of Golf. I'm obviously guessing here, but I think the Masters is more likely to take the conservative line and stick with the Rules of Golf rather than follow the breakaway version of the PGA Tour. That's at least 2 of the majors, and possibly 3 that won't allow anchoring putters. How many players are going to exclude themselves from 2 or perhaps 3 majors by playing that way?


I am sure The Open will stick with the rules approved by the R&A.   But as I said, it has only been a major on the PGA Tour for less than 20 years.   Before it was on the PGA Tour, many of the best made the trip over to play it.    Should the PGA Tour decide to implement their own rules, I could still see players going over for that tournament, whether it counts toward the tour schedule or not.    The US Open is owned by the USGA, so they would obviously want the tournament to be run under USGA rules but that does not mean it has to count on the PGA Tour (like The Open used to not.)   Again, not having it count on the PGA Tour does not preclude tour players from participating if they so choose.   I feel pretty certain the PGA owns the PGA Championship, who runs/owns the rights to The Masters?  

 

And a better question is, which body negotiated the TV rights to the American events, the USGA or the PGA Tour?   Considering the amount of revenue involved, I am sure the sponsors, broadcast networks, etc..   and their opinions/decisions regarding this would come into  play as the PGA Tour mulls over what to do.

 

Actually the Open Championship has been a major for a lot longer than that.  It was a major when Bobby Jones won his grand slam.  It was a major when Arnie won it, and it was a major all 3 times that Jack won it.  It has never been on the PGA Tour.  I'm not sure where you get your information.   The True South Classic is the PGA Tour stop the week of  the Open. 

post #76 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

 

Actually the Open Championship has been a major for a lot longer than that.  It was a major when Bobby Jones won his grand slam.  It was a major when Arnie won it, and it was a major all 3 times that Jack won it.  It has never been on the PGA Tour.  I'm not sure where you get your information.   The True South Classic is the PGA Tour stop the week of  the Open. 

I don't disagree that it has been a major for a long time.   A helluva lot longer than there has been a PGA Tour in fact.   But it is a part of the PGA tour and has been since 1995.   If you go to the PGA Tour website, you will find it listed on the official tournament schedule.   Furthermore, winners of The Open Championship prior to 1995 were retroactively given credit for PGA Tour wins. 

post #77 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by teamroper60 View Post

I don't disagree that it has been a major for a long time.   A helluva lot longer than there has been a PGA Tour in fact.   But it is a part of the PGA tour and has been since 1995.   If you go to the PGA Tour website, you will find it listed on the official tournament schedule.   Furthermore, winners of The Open Championship prior to 1995 were retroactively given credit for PGA Tour wins. 

 

If you go to the European Tour website you'll see the Masters, PGA Championship and US Open are listed on the tour schedule, so they're equally part of the European Tour.

 

But that's pretty much irrelevant anyway because players don't turn up to the majors worrying about money lists or ranking points. They want their name on the trophy. And the Masters is run by the Augusta National Golf Club and they would decide whether or not it was played under the Rules of Golf. Purely a guess on my part but I think they'd be at least 50/50 to take the conservative line and stick with the Rules of Golf.

 

So how many players are going to continue anchoring their putter if it counts them out of at least two of the majors? Even if the PGA Tour de-sanctions the events that's hardly going to matter to the players. The majors will still be the majors.

post #78 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

How can you say that?  Approved local rule s ARE rules of golf, so how can they also be breaches?  And they are allowed for ANY competition, not just PGA Tour.  My Men's Club uses a couple of local rules from the list.  That doesn't change the Rules of Golf, it only addresses some local conditions which are not encountered on every course.   They are NOT breaches of rules, they are simply extensions to the rules which are applied for special or unusual circumstances.  Just like the allowance in most competitions and courses these days for using GPS or laser rangefinders.  They are not a breach of Rule 14 when implemented, they are an extension of it.  They can't be both a rule and a breach of a rule at the same time.  Local Rules ARE rules.  When a tournament specifies conditions of the competition, those conditions are rules too (like the one ball condition which the Tour uses).

If you want to argue that the PGA Tour takes the implementation farther than the original intent of the local rule, I won't dispute that.  They use the local rule allowing the extension of the embedded ball ball rule from closely mowed areas to through the green as a standard policy.  I disagree with that.  It should only be used when actual conditions warrant, but the Tour tends to baby its members bit too much.
The Committee has no power to waive a Rule of Golf.

A Rule of Golf must not be waived by a Local Rule. However, if a Committee considers that local abnormal conditions interfere with the proper playing of the game to the extent that it is necessary to make a Local Rule that modifies the Rules of Golf, the Local Rule must be authorized by the USGA.


So, they are modifying a rule of golf. And, by extension, they are breaching a rule of golf to suit their needs. How can you say that allowing a drop closer to the hole is not a breach of the rules of golf?

We have a drop area near a hazard that allows people to drop the ball closer to the hole than where it entered. It is expedient to the pace of play, which is not a good enough reason to allow it. So, when the USGA held a qualifying tournament at our club, they moved the drop area back to spot where you had to walk up a hill and hit from a dicey lie, or go back to the tee. There was no place to drop using two club lengths. Players went back to the tee. We still use the forward drop for our competitions, although the USGA disapproves. Our reason isn't good enough for them, but they'll certainly find reason to fit their needs.
post #79 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by smiley View Post

 

The sad thing is that thousands of consumers bought into the elaborate claims for improvement ( I'm not saying the next generation isn't better it 's more really a question of  how much of the claims can be realised by  Mr Average).

 

 

 

Good point.

 

It's the law of diminishing returns.

 

If a new driver can increase length by 5%, that equates to about 15-17 yards for a pro, but only 11-13 yards for average golfer if we actually use the club to it's fullest potential (we don't, so it's probably closer to 5 yards). That 11-13 yards maximum isn't a game changer for average golfer. As posted above, it might mean a longer search in the trees.

 

It's the same in most other sports (paying $1000s to trim a few grams from a bicycle comes to mind).

 

The one improvement that has helped average golfer a lot is SGI irons and hyrids, but this technology is so ubiquitous now that a cheap set of generic irons/hybrids is immensely more improvement over the old clubs gathering dust in their garage than the RBZ equivalent is over the cheap generics.

post #80 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post

First of all, I never said anything about "approved" or "not approved". Obviously the PGA talks to the USGA when they make their local rules. But there are plenty of instances where they do things that do not conform with the stated USGA rules. Two in particular are when they put out of bounds stakes in the middle of a golf course, and when they allow drops that are closer to the hole.

Neither of these, as practiced by the tour, are violations of the Rules of Golf as they are local rules that the ROG specifically allow. 

post #81 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post

First of all, I never said anything about "approved" or "not approved". Obviously the PGA talks to the USGA when they make their local rules. But there are plenty of instances where they do things that do not conform with the stated USGA rules. Two in particular are when they put out of bounds stakes in the middle of a golf course, and when they allow drops that are closer to the hole.

Neither of these, as practiced by the tour, are violations of the Rules of Golf as they are local rules that the ROG specifically allow. 

 

I've quit replying to him on this topic because he refuses to acknowledge that local rules ARE Rules of Golf, and as such they aren't a breach of any rules.  You can only state facts so many times before you conclude that you are trying to explain "red" to a blind man.

post #82 of 86

My only comment / observation / question is - Why does making golf easier equate to more fun and participants?

 

I am a crappy golfer (my current handicap factor is 13.8) but it is the challenge to improve that keeps me coming back to the game.

 

I am the golf instructors' worst nightmare. People at my level should not be trying to hit draws or fades. Yet that is what I try to do everytime I practice.

 

I know deep down inside that I will never be a scratch or even reach single digits yet I keep on trying because of the challenge.

 

Would I ever play a course where the hole is 12 inches across and therefore it will be easier to shot a lower score? Of course not.

post #83 of 86

Because there's a common misconception that the reason people aren't playing golf is because it's too difficult to play.  Most people I know that do play golf aren't very good and like you all play because of the challenge golf presents to improve. 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ay33660 View Post

My only comment / observation / question is - Why does making golf easier equate to more fun and participants?

 

I am a crappy golfer (my current handicap factor is 13.8) but it is the challenge to improve that keeps me coming back to the game.

 

I am the golf instructors' worst nightmare. People at my level should not be trying to hit draws or fades. Yet that is what I try to do everytime I practice.

 

I know deep down inside that I will never be a scratch or even reach single digits yet I keep on trying because of the challenge.

 

Would I ever play a course where the hole is 12 inches across and therefore it will be easier to shot a lower score? Of course not.

post #84 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post

Because there's a common misconception that the reason people aren't playing golf is because it's too difficult to play.  Most people I know that do play golf aren't very good and like you all play because of the challenge golf presents to improve. 

 

Quote:

 

Exactly.  That is why I see the TM guy, King, as not so much interested in what players want or need, but more interested in his own company's bottom line.

 

Golf is hard and not that many people are interested in tackling hard things.  As a math teacher I see exactly the same thing.  Math is (perceived as being) hard so most people won't even try.  But the people who do, just like the people who are willing to tackle golf, are special.

post #85 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post

 

Exactly.  That is why I see the TM guy, King, as not so much interested in what players want or need, but more interested in his own company's bottom line.

 

He only needs to interest people long enough to sell them a set of clubs.

 

If said clubs go directly to the garage to collect dust, makes no difference.

post #86 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by WWBDD View Post

 

He only needs to interest people long enough to sell them a set of clubs.

 

If said clubs go directly to the garage to collect dust, makes no difference.

Exactly. King doesn't care about growing the game. He just wants a dust covered set of clubs in every garage.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Golf Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › TaylorMade and Titleist CEO's Speak Up about the USGA and Bifurcation of the Rules