or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Rules of Golf › "The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf" by Richard S. Tufts
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf" by Richard S. Tufts - Page 2

post #19 of 98
Just ordered a copy (actually, three - one for me, one for my bag, one for a friend). Very much looking forward to reading this.

Side note: it seems the USGA is not an Amazon affiliate. Look at the price of this book on Amazon and compare it to the USGA.
post #20 of 98

Just ordered mine.

post #21 of 98

I bought the hardcover version this summer, thanks for the reminder. This thread is giving me the push I need to find the time to read it...

 

Kevin

post #22 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevCarter View Post
 

I bought the hardcover version this summer, thanks for the reminder. This thread is giving me the push I need to find the time to read it...

 

Kevin

 

BTW, kev, my attorney will be contacting you about trademark infringement.  ;-) 

post #23 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post
 

 

BTW, kev, my attorney will be contacting you about trademark infringement.  ;-) 

 

I can't afford an attorney, so I fixed it.

 

ROTFL

 

Cheers!

post #24 of 98

I had this book bought and brought to me from USA in early 2008 (edition 2000) and to be honest I was somewhat disappointed. As such the book is ok and gives food for thoughts but maybe I expected more detailed info on the principles of individual Rules. What I heard is that there is a newer edition available containing some updates of current changes, maybe there are some for older ones as well, don't know.

 

All in all, a good book to read once in a while and a hard cover looks good on the book shelf :-D

 

P.S. One piece of advice for all of you who read older books dealing with Rules: remember that Rules change all the time and what you read today might have grown old yesterday.

post #25 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignorant View Post
 

I had this book bought and brought to me from USA in early 2008 (edition 2000) and to be honest I was somewhat disappointed. As such the book is ok and gives food for thoughts but maybe I expected more detailed info on the principles of individual Rules. What I heard is that there is a newer edition available containing some updates of current changes, maybe there are some for older ones as well, don't know.

 

All in all, a good book to read once in a while and a hard cover looks good on the book shelf :-D

 

P.S. One piece of advice for all of you who read older books dealing with Rules: remember that Rules change all the time and what you read today might have grown old yesterday.

 

The rules may change, but the principles they are based on do not.  Most rule changes these days are relatively minor in nature, and rarely affect the link to the underlying principle.  It shouldn't be necessary to detail every rule.  Once you grasp the theory, you should be able to make the connections yourself.

post #26 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

The rules may change, but the principles they are based on do not. 

 

Maybe so but as technology advances and other factors become more important than the principles the Rules no longer follow the principles. But let us not get tangled with that here, it'll be too long of a story.

post #27 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignorant View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

The rules may change, but the principles they are based on do not. 

 

Maybe so but as technology advances and other factors become more important than the principles the Rules no longer follow the principles. But let us not get tangled with that here, it'll be too long of a story.

 

You will have to show me an example.  I doubt that there is any rule which can't be traced back to the basics.  The link may be tenuous, but it will be there.

post #28 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

You will have to show me an example.  I doubt that there is any rule which can't be traced back to the basics.  The link may be tenuous, but it will be there.

 

First example I was thinking of was Lift, Clean & Place. On professional tours this is used more and more often just to satisfy the requirements of various parties (not only players) even though the conditions are not exceptionally poor. Pretty far from 'play the ball as it lies' IMO.

post #29 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignorant View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

You will have to show me an example.  I doubt that there is any rule which can't be traced back to the basics.  The link may be tenuous, but it will be there.

 

First example I was thinking of was Lift, Clean & Place. On professional tours this is used more and more often just to satisfy the requirements of various parties (not only players) even though the conditions are not exceptionally poor. Pretty far from 'play the ball as it lies' IMO.

 

First of all, that isn't a "regular" rule of golf - it exists to address exceptional conditions when the course would be unplayable otherwise.  The PGA Tour uses it much more freely than the USGA or the R&A would approve of.  They also allow a placement range which is ridiculously generous.  On the very rare occasions that my men's club invoked the Preferred Lies local rule, we got 6 inches, not a full clublength.  

 

It just supports my disdain for the pampering that the pros receive.  I feel that they are coddled far too much week in and week out, and then all they do is complain when they have to play by the conditions the USGA sets at the US Open, or that the R&A does for the Open Championship.  The PGA Tour has become more concerned with image than with golf.

post #30 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 On the very rare occasions that my men's club invoked the Preferred Lies local rule, we got 6 inches, not a full clublength.  

 

 

Isn't that for handicap purposes? In the European EGA system more than 15 cm renders the scores invalid for hcp purposes.

post #31 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignorant View Post
 

 

Isn't that for handicap purposes? In the European EGA system more than 15 cm renders the scores invalid for hcp purposes.

 

The distance is at the discretion of the Committee. However, the 1cl commonly used in North America and parts of Asia has rarely been used in the UK or the rest of Europe.

 

You are right in that the EGA (following CONGU) have specified a max of 6" in order for a competition to qualify for handicap purposes and PL is only allowed during the winter months.

 

I have never known why 1cl is deemed necessary. We get pretty muddy winters. 

post #32 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rulesman View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignorant View Post
 

 

Isn't that for handicap purposes? In the European EGA system more than 15 cm renders the scores invalid for hcp purposes.

 

The distance is at the discretion of the Committee. However, the 1cl commonly used in North America and parts of Asia has rarely been used in the UK or the rest of Europe.

 

You are right in that the EGA (following CONGU) have specified a max of 6" in order for a competition to qualify for handicap purposes and PL is only allowed during the winter months.

 

I have never known why 1cl is deemed necessary. We get pretty muddy winters. 

 

Like I said, the PGA Tour players are pampered babies.  The Tour is frightened of anything which might tarnish the slogan "These guys are good", and making them play from random lies on a slightly soggy course might make them look bad.  They play on some of the best kept, best manicured courses in the world and they still get to fluff their lies anywhere in the short grass.... too often it becomes a travesty of golf.

post #33 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rulesman View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignorant View Post
 

 

Isn't that for handicap purposes? In the European EGA system more than 15 cm renders the scores invalid for hcp purposes.

 

The distance is at the discretion of the Committee. However, the 1cl commonly used in North America and parts of Asia has rarely been used in the UK or the rest of Europe.

 

You are right in that the EGA (following CONGU) have specified a max of 6" in order for a competition to qualify for handicap purposes and PL is only allowed during the winter months.

 

I have never known why 1cl is deemed necessary. We get pretty muddy winters. 

 

Like I said, the PGA Tour players are pampered babies.  The Tour is frightened of anything which might tarnish the slogan "These guys are good", and making them play from random lies on a slightly soggy course might make them look bad.  They play on some of the best kept, best manicured courses in the world and they still get to fluff their lies anywhere in the short grass.... too often it becomes a travesty of golf.

 

As are many others here, I'm somewhat offended by the PGA Tour's liberal use of LCP. Then, I remember that the PGA Tour is just a business whose product is good players looking good on good golf courses. They are significantly constrained by the demands of television and the calendar. Ultimately their recipe for success depends upon advertising ... someone has to sell those lumbering Buicks and all that Viagra to old white men with disposable income. 

post #34 of 98
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rulesman View Post
 

I have never known why 1cl is deemed necessary. We get pretty muddy winters. 

 

Likely for the simple reason that it's easy to measure, and "a clublength" is an established form of measure, while something like "six inches" hasn't been around since the days of the stymie, IIRC.

 

The PGA Tour uses LCP too frequently, yes, but the link to the principles in the Rules of Golf still exists, just as it does for loose impediments - that's not how the course was meant to be played (with a dead, detached branch one inch in front of your golf ball in the middle of the fairway) so there are principled exceptions to "play the ball as it lies." The same is true when the course itself is not in the "playable" condition in which it is supposed to be.

 

The PGA Tour just defines that more narrowly than the USGA/R&A would, but for the reasons stated above: they're in the entertainment business, and they're a member-run organization.

post #35 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

Likely for the simple reason that it's easy to measure, and "a clublength" is an established form of measure, while something like "six inches" hasn't been around since the days of the stymie, IIRC..

 

"Six inches" is relatively new. It used to be "a scorecard length". Very easy to measure.

 

I suspect this was one the R&A conceded to the USGA.

 

1cl was only introduced in 2000.


Edited by Rulesman - 10/2/13 at 3:54pm
post #36 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rulesman View Post
 

 

"Six inches" is relatively new. It used to be "a scorecard length". Very easy to measure.

 

I suspect this was one the R&A conceded to the USGA.

 

1cl was only introduced in 2000.

 

But then some clubs would have scorecards that were a yard long.  LOL

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rules of Golf
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Rules of Golf › "The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf" by Richard S. Tufts