Should Pros Play by a Different Set of Rules?

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by MEfree

"A rule that nobody follows isn`t much of a rule."  (quoted from another thread, IIRC)  Simplifying the rules makes it more likely that more players will be playing by the same rules.  I think this can be done so as not to fundamentally change the game (like increasing the size of the hole would as discussed on another thread) and if implemented properly should increase the speed and enjoyment of the game for everyone.

We've already had that discussion.  That thread went on for many pages, and every attempt at simplifying even one or 2 rules failed miserably.  The upshot is, if you can write a functioning simplified rule book that isn't as full of holes as a fishnet, then you would be the first.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

My analogy is fine. You just disagree is all - that's okay too.

No it's not. You're saying the ball in other sports is the same. It is, but it's shared equipment, and personal equipment in other sports is not the same. The shared stuff in golf is, as in all sports, the same.

Maybe I'm biased because I just simply believe they should be playing one ball and scaled back drivers, but I've certainly read much worse analogies on this forum. I can think of a couple right now that make me laugh, but that's not the topic at hand - good analogy or terrible - I believe they should play one ball. Can I write a thesis on why I have this opinion?  Let's just say I don't feel so strongly about it either way and maybe my opinion is more about high handicap amateurs who take themselves too seriously. Some of the arguments against the professional tours having their own rules seem to stem from amateurs having their feelings hurt.

I don't want to step on any toes, but if people think because they're using the same rulebook that they're peers with touring professionals then they need a reality check - off topic and my last comment on that.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Maybe I'm biased because I just simply believe they should be playing one ball and scaled back drivers, but I've certainly read much worse analogies on this forum. I can think of a couple right now that make me laugh, but that's not the topic at hand - good analogy or terrible - I believe they should play one ball. Can I write a thesis on why I have this opinion?  Let's just say I don't feel so strongly about it either way and maybe my opinion is more about high handicap amateurs who take themselves too seriously. Some of the arguments against the professional tours having their own rules seem to stem from amateurs having their feelings hurt.

I don't want to step on any toes, but if people think because they're using the same rulebook that they're peers with touring professionals then they need a reality check - off topic and my last comment on that.

Well, after having spent 4 years working as a volunteer hole marshal for a PGA Tour stop, I can unequivocally say that you are mistaken.  There are conditions which obtain that require some local rules to be implemented, and the Tour has some policies in force as conditions of the competition, but the rules are still the rules.  PGA Rules officials tend to be a bit more liberal in their decisions than their USGA and R&A; counterparts, but it's still the same rule book.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Maybe I'm biased because I just simply believe they should be playing one ball and scaled back drivers, but I've certainly read much worse analogies on this forum. I can think of a couple right now that make me laugh, but that's not the topic at hand - good analogy or terrible - I believe they should play one ball. Can I write a thesis on why I have this opinion?  Let's just say I don't feel so strongly about it either way and maybe my opinion is more about high handicap amateurs who take themselves too seriously. Some of the arguments against the professional tours having their own rules seem to stem from amateurs having their feelings hurt.

I don't want to step on any toes, but if people think because they're using the same rulebook that they're peers with touring professionals then they need a reality check - off topic and my last comment on that.

Well, after having spent 4 years working as a volunteer hole marshal for a PGA Tour stop, I can unequivocally say that you are mistaken.  There are conditions which obtain that require some local rules to be implemented, and the Tour has some policies in force as conditions of the competition, but the rules are still the rules.  PGA Rules officials tend to be a bit more liberal in their decisions than their USGA and R&A; counterparts, but it's still the same rule book.

You're doing the same thing to Sean that you've done to me twice now in the slow play thread: Either intentionally twisting words or not reading what was written. Sean didn't say the rule book was different. He said the fact that the rulebook is the same does not make us peers with touring pros. I'm not taking a stance either way on Sean's statement, just saying you're not responding to what he said.

[NM Golf]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Maybe I'm biased because I just simply believe they should be playing one ball and scaled back drivers, but I've certainly read much worse analogies on this forum. I can think of a couple right now that make me laugh, but that's not the topic at hand - good analogy or terrible - I believe they should play one ball. Can I write a thesis on why I have this opinion?  Let's just say I don't feel so strongly about it either way and maybe my opinion is more about high handicap amateurs who take themselves too seriously. Some of the arguments against the professional tours having their own rules seem to stem from amateurs having their feelings hurt.

I don't want to step on any toes, but if people think because they're using the same rulebook that they're peers with touring professionals then they need a reality check - off topic and my last comment on that.

Playing one ball does not make any sense to me. First, all the guys out there have a choice about what ball they want. Its not like there is a certain ball that is head and shoulders above the rest but is only available to a certain few while the rest are forced to play gutta percha. But then again this is my argument as to why long putters shouldn't be banned. Why try to control or ban a specific club that is available to everyone.

Golf balls and woods should be monitored in order to keep the game from becoming ridiculous, but that is all clubs and balls. That type of monitoring is already in place with the USGA and R&A.; The unfair thing to do now is to make players play with one type of ball or club that might not fit their game. That will cause problems with a certain few players not golf in general.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by NM Golf

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Maybe I'm biased because I just simply believe they should be playing one ball and scaled back drivers, but I've certainly read much worse analogies on this forum. I can think of a couple right now that make me laugh, but that's not the topic at hand - good analogy or terrible - I believe they should play one ball. Can I write a thesis on why I have this opinion?  Let's just say I don't feel so strongly about it either way and maybe my opinion is more about high handicap amateurs who take themselves too seriously. Some of the arguments against the professional tours having their own rules seem to stem from amateurs having their feelings hurt.

I don't want to step on any toes, but if people think because they're using the same rulebook that they're peers with touring professionals then they need a reality check - off topic and my last comment on that.

Playing one ball does not make any sense to me. First, all the guys out there have a choice about what ball they want. Its not like there is a certain ball that is head and shoulders above the rest but is only available to a certain few while the rest are forced to play gutta percha. But then again this is my argument as to why long putters shouldn't be banned. Why try to control or ban a specific club that is available to everyone.

Golf balls and woods should be monitored in order to keep the game from becoming ridiculous, but that is all clubs and balls. That type of monitoring is already in place with the USGA and R&A.; The unfair thing to do now is to make players play with one type of ball or club that might not fit their game. That will cause problems with a certain few players not golf in general.

The only reason I think they should play one ball is that I think the ball should be scaled back and this "might be" the easiest way to do it. Let amateurs play whichever ball the USGA (or whatever) says is conorming, then scale back the pro ball for tournament play. Those that feel the ball should not be scaled back would obviously disagree with everything I just said, so if you (or anyone else reading this) is one those people, why even bother to respond hacking up my flawed one-ball logic.

[phillyk]

It isn't the technology or rules of the game that make the difference between pro and everybody else.  It's YOU! It's the discipline, the heart, the mental agility and swiftness that one can put into his game to make it as perfect as possible.  Technology is helping to bridge the gap between pros and everybody but it's always the person that has to make the next step in performance.

[NM Golf]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

The only reason I think they should play one ball is that I think the ball should be scaled back and this "might be" the easiest way to do it. Let amateurs play whichever ball the USGA (or whatever) says is conorming, then scale back the pro ball for tournament play. Those that feel the ball should not be scaled back would obviously disagree with everything I just said, so if you (or anyone else reading this) is one those people, why even bother to respond hacking up my flawed one-ball logic.

I don't have any problem with controlling how far the ball goes, in fact I think it is completely necessary. The same goes for the trampoline effect off metalwoods. In case you have missed it that type of testing is in effect now. All balls and clubs must be tested by the USGA and R&A; to make sure they are within set guidelines. You can set guidelines for distance, spin, or whatever you want does not mean that one ball will work for everyone.

My problem with one ball is the other playing characteristics involved. No matter what ball you choose as the standard ball, the playing characteristics (spin, feel, trajectory) will now fit only a certain few players. As it is now players can freely find a ball that fits their game. A high launch, high spin player will choose a ball that has lower spin characteristics, whereas a player with lower trajectory might choose a higher spinning ball. Both balls fit within set guidelines  they are just slightly different to help an individual player play their best.

If you make everyone play one ball and that ball is a lower spin ball, you just made it more difficult for that low trajectory player to compete and gave his high trajectory competitor an unfair advantage. At that point you should just make everyone play the same flex shafts, and the same club heads as well.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by NM Golf

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

The only reason I think they should play one ball is that I think the ball should be scaled back and this "might be" the easiest way to do it. Let amateurs play whichever ball the USGA (or whatever) says is conorming, then scale back the pro ball for tournament play. Those that feel the ball should not be scaled back would obviously disagree with everything I just said, so if you (or anyone else reading this) is one those people, why even bother to respond hacking up my flawed one-ball logic.

I don't have any problem with controlling how far the ball goes, in fact I think it is completely necessary. The same goes for the trampoline effect off metalwoods. In case you have missed it that type of testing is in effect now. All balls and clubs must be tested by the USGA and R&A; to make sure they are within set guidelines. You can set guidelines for distance, spin, or whatever you want does not mean that one ball will work for everyone.

My problem with one ball is the other playing characteristics involved. No matter what ball you choose as the standard ball, the playing characteristics (spin, feel, trajectory) will now fit only a certain few players. As it is now players can freely find a ball that fits their game. A high launch, high spin player will choose a ball that has lower spin characteristics, whereas a player with lower trajectory might choose a higher spinning ball. Both balls fit within set guidelines  they are just slightly different to help an individual player play their best.

If you make everyone play one ball and that ball is a lower spin ball, you just made it more difficult for that low trajectory player to compete and gave his high trajectory competitor an unfair advantage. At that point you should just make everyone play the same flex shafts, and the same club heads as well.

The more arguments you add to why each player should have the right to play his or her own type of ball chosen to take advantage of their own personal playing style or skills, the more you're convincing me they should all be playing the same ball. It's just a difference of opinion, and since mine is probably in the very small minority, there's no need to keep hammering away at it - we can just agree to disagree.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

You're doing the same thing to Sean that you've done to me twice now in the slow play thread: Either intentionally twisting words or not reading what was written. Sean didn't say the rule book was different. He said the fact that the rulebook is the same does not make us peers with touring pros. I'm not taking a stance either way on Sean's statement, just saying you're not responding to what he said.

I didn't twist his words intentionally, I completely misread what he wrote.  I've seen that comment posted often enough that I read what wasn't there.  My abject apologies to Sean.

[TomK82]

no thats what is so great about golf is anyone can play the same game as the pros.

[joekelly]

ab·ject

[ ab -jekt , ab- jekt ] Show IPA

adjective

1.

utterly hopeless, miserable, humiliating, or wretched: abject poverty .

2.

contemptible; despicable; base-spirited: an abject coward.

3.

shamelessly servile; slavish.

4.

Obsolete . cast aside.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

We've already had that discussion.  That thread went on for many pages, and every attempt at simplifying even one or 2 rules failed miserably.  The upshot is, if you can write a functioning simplified rule book that isn't as full of holes as a fishnet, then you would be the first.

I think it could be done without a bunch of holes but only if people were willing to accept material changes to the current rules (i.e. consolidating OB/LB/WH/LWH so that they are played as similarly as possible and eliminating rules that don`t have much material affect on the game).  Some will say that this messes with the traditions of the game, but I would counter that originally there were only 13 rules with the rules evolving and being modified throughout golfing history.

Out of curiosity, what thread are you referring to? http://thesandtrap.com/t/47141/rules-of-golf-in-one-page-maybe-two-project or something else?

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by MEfree

I think it could be done without a bunch of holes but only if people were willing to accept material changes to the current rules (i.e. consolidating OB/LB/WH/LWH so that they are played as similarly as possible and eliminating rules that don`t have much material affect on the game).  Some will say that this messes with the traditions of the game, but I would counter that originally there were only 13 rules with the rules evolving and being modified throughout golfing history.

Out of curiosity, what thread are you referring to?   http://thesandtrap.com/t/47141/rules-of-golf-in-one-page-maybe-two-project or something else?

Yeah, I am curious what other problems would be created by your OB/hazard rule consolidation proposal. I think its a great idea, and can't think of any issues with it ... although I am almost certainly missing something.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Yeah, I am curious what other problems would be created by your OB/hazard rule consolidation proposal. I think its a great idea, and can't think of any issues with it ... although I am almost certainly missing something.

Depends how you define "problems."  If arguing the other side, I would say that playing an OB like a LWH isn`t enough of a penalty.  My counter to that is to ask why should a 250 yard drive that ends up 1 foot OB penalize a player more than a whiff?  Same thing for a lost ball?

I`d go on to say that if it is felt that this rules consolidation lessens the penalty for inaccuracy by too much, then other steps could be taken to counter this such as growing out the rough, treating a parallel hole as an ESA LWH with a drop/1 stroke penalty required, etc.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by MEfree

Depends how you define "problems."  If arguing the other side, I would say that playing an OB like a LWH isn`t enough of a penalty.  My counter to that is to ask why should a 250 yard drive that ends up 1 foot OB penalize a player more than a whiff?  Same thing for a lost ball?

I`d go on to say that if it is felt that this rules consolidation lessens the penalty for inaccuracy by too much, then other steps could be taken to counter this such as growing out the rough, treating a parallel hole as an ESA LWH with a drop/1 stroke penalty required, etc.

I can also certainly see the other side's argument for lost balls.  By definition, you don't know where it is, so how would you know where to take your drop?

I still think your argument makes loads of sense.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by MEfree

Depends how you define "problems."  If arguing the other side, I would say that playing an OB like a LWH isn`t enough of a penalty.  My counter to that is to ask why should a 250 yard drive that ends up 1 foot OB penalize a player more than a whiff?  Same thing for a lost ball?

OB is where you literally hit the ball so badly you're off the property of the golf course. Yes, sometimes the course boundaries are close to the hole, but it's the equivalent of throwing your bowling ball into someone else's lane.

And a lost ball speaks for itself: how can you possibly know where to drop if you can't even FIND your golf ball? The entire game revolves around playing the golf COURSE with your golf BALL. Leaving the golf course and/or losing your golf ball suffer the harshest penalties.

Which makes sense.

In order of difficulty as it concerns your ball and course hazards:

OB/Lost Ball

Water

Bunkers

Rough

Trees fit in there somewhere but on some holes are worse than water and on some holes less of a penalty than rough.

And the whiff example needs to die. You're not penalized for whiffing. You made a stroke that was ineffective, same as hitting a ball and not getting it out of a bunker (vs. blading a ball out of the bunker so badly it flies into someone's back yard).

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by iacas

OB is where you literally hit the ball so badly you're off the property of the golf course. Yes, sometimes the course boundaries are close to the hole, but it's the equivalent of throwing your bowling ball into someone else's lane.

And a lost ball speaks for itself: how can you possibly know where to drop if you can't even FIND your golf ball? The entire game revolves around playing the golf COURSE with your golf BALL. Leaving the golf course and/or losing your golf ball suffer the harshest penalties.

Which makes sense.

In order of difficulty as it concerns your ball and course hazards:

OB/Lost Ball

Water

Bunkers

Rough

Trees fit in there somewhere but on some holes are worse than water and on some holes less of a penalty than rough.

And the whiff example needs to die. You're not penalized for whiffing. You made a stroke that was ineffective, same as hitting a ball and not getting it out of a bunker (vs. blading a ball out of the bunker so badly it flies into someone's back yard).

Erik, why do you have to come on here and make sense all the time?  It's really annoying!

I guess the types of OB that I think don't make sense are the ones that aren't really far off the fairway, and in fact aren't even defining the edge of course property.  For example, there's a hole at a course I play in a retirement community that has homes lining the left side and there is OB.  But the OB is waaaay closer to the fairway than it is to the homes.  In fact, the cart path itself, which is right off the fairway, is the boundary.  Additionally, the hole doglegs to the right, so you can hit a "good" drive with a slight pull, or even straight and it just doesn't cut, and it can roll across the cart path to OB.  Yet it's sitting right there on nice grass with a clear shot to the green.

I guess in that case, my argument shouldn't be so much with the rules, but with the course in having that designation.  They could put the OB much further right, or if they really don't want anybody playing over there, just call it a lateral hazard with an ESA.

Also, the OB's put in to keep people from cutting doglegs around other holes.  I'd rather they put a warning sign, or a fence to keep people from attempting it.