MEfree Challenge: New Rules of Golf - Simplified but not Fundamentally Changed

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Dave2512

But isn't that how it should be? There's more to it than skill. It's the ability to make decisions on the course based on your skill relative to the difficulty of the course, including the ability to avoid obstacles. It makes sense that better players would avoid trouble. Some of it is due to their reasoning, their ability to exercise control and evaluate risk.

I am not saying that isn't how it should be...all I am saying is that my proposed rules wouldn't change that- pros would still keep it in play and high cappers wouldn't.  You aren't going to see an 18 capper beat Tiger playing under my rules.

On the course you play most often Dave, how many holes would you change your strategy if you were playing under my rules?

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Sorry, but did you read my entire post (I realize it was a bit long)?  When you change the penalty structure, you have fundamentally changed how you balance advantage gained through normal play versus advantage gained by penalty.  When it costs no more to hit the ball off the course than it does to keep in on the course, there is no longer any particular incentive to play the course as you find it (one of the 2 most fundamental principles of golf).   Dogleg requiring a carry over the boundary?  No big deal, it's just a one stroke penalty if you miss, you get to keep any distance gained before leaving the course, so it's well worth the risk.  How can you tell me that won't change the fundamental way that the game is played?

Yes, I did. :)

Except I think you're being a little bit casual with how drastic of a change this would make in players' strategies.  I don't know why anybody would risk trying to carry a dogleg over a hazard anymore than they would a dogleg over OB.  I try to avoid penalty strokes at all costs.  Any penalty strokes.  If I'm playing Cypress #16, I don't go "Sweet, the ocean is only a water hazard so it's no big deal if I don't carry it, I can just drop on that downhill lie in the rough at the edge of the cliff and be 170 out lying 3, instead of 215 from here with a tee.  And I certainly don't want to be sitting in that fairway over there 40 yards from the green with a chance at an up and down for par."  That's silly.

------------

To Mefree:  I will say, though, that I think you diminish your stance by continually going back to the "this is how a lot of amateur hacks already play, so lets appease them" argument.

You play with a very different crowd then.  I can name at least a dozen guys I've played with often who wouldn't hesitate to cut a corner over a hazard, but would rarely consider doing it if the penalty was landing out of bounds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave2512

I don't think they do. These things aren't decided randomly.

Sometimes probably not.  Obviously a course cannot go OFF their own property to consider something playable.  They can't require that Old Man Johnson allow everybody to take giant divots out of his front lawn.  However, within the confines of their own property, certainly they can make decisions on where they want you to play or not to play.  I've played courses that have added areas of OB that weren't there before, and I played a tournament at a course that called all of the brush areas hazards that weren't marked as hazards prior to that.

And because of that, because I feel that it's arbitrary enough, I don't see how bringing an OB penalty back in line with an ESA hazard penalty (you cannot play it, you have to take the penalty and drop, you just don't get punished the distance) fundamentally changes anything.

You make the assumption that the second ball from the original spot would not take the same detour as the first.  You fail to consider the fundamental difference between a ball in play and a ball out of bounds (thus not in play).  A fundamental part of the game is keeping your ball in play (and I'm not talking about being "playable", I'm talking about the rules definition of ball in play ).

Quote:

Ball In Play

A ball is “ in play ” as soon as the player has made a stroke on the teeing ground . It remains in play until it is holed , except when it is lost , out of bounds or lifted, or another ball has been substituted , whether or not the substitution is permitted; a ball so substituted becomes the ball in play .

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Sorry, but did you read my entire post (I realize it was a bit long)?  When you change the penalty structure, you have fundamentally changed how you balance advantage gained through normal play versus advantage gained by penalty.  When it costs no more to hit the ball off the course than it does to keep in on the course, there is no longer any particular incentive to play the course as you find it (one of the 2 most fundamental principles of golf).   Dogleg requiring a carry over the boundary?  No big deal, it's just a one stroke penalty if you miss, you get to keep any distance gained before leaving the course, so it's well worth the risk.  How can you tell me that won't change the fundamental way that the game is played?

If you apply stroke and distance, and assume you make your shots afterwards, your 2nd tee shot is 3 and you're on the green in four.

If you've got to drop where it crossed the OB, then you're lying two, on the tee side of the dog leg.  If the OB is wooded or there is some sort of obstruction, then you've got to punch out and hope to get on in 4--the same as stroke and distance.  If its open and labelled OB for no apparent reason, then I guess there might be a scenario when you can go for another hero shot and hope to be on in 3 (of course, the safe play is down the fairway then on in 2).

So basically, you're saying that such a rule would fundamentally change the nature of golf because if you're playing a course that has a dog legged hole, and if that hole has OB in the bend, and if the OB area does not contain an obstruction, and if you could get on the green from the far side of the bend on your third shot, you might be more inclined to attempt the hero shot because the penalty for failing is 1 stroke not 2?

If you're going to argue that this rule fundamentally changes the game, stick with lost balls, not contrived examples of OB.

Contrived?  But these proposed rules changes aren't contrived?   That's about all I have to say to you about that.  Have you  ever stood on the tee and hit more than one ball out of bounds before finally getting a ball in play?  Yet now you want the get out of jail free card.  Maybe you should just stick with Monopoly.

(And yes, I've played several courses with doglegs which hook around and OB area.  A course close to my house in Denver had exactly such a par 5 hole.  The tee shot was typically played as far down the left as possible, and the only real way to reach the green in two was to cut the dogleg from the tee.  I played a lot of provisional balls off that tee.)

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Contrived?  But these proposed rules changes aren't contrived?   That's about all I have to say to you about that.  Have you  ever stood on the tee and hit more than one ball out of bounds before finally getting a ball in play?  Yet now you want the get out of jail free card.  Maybe you should just stick with Monopoly.

(And yes, I've played several courses with doglegs which hook around and OB area.  A course close to my house in Denver had exactly such a par 5 hole.  The tee shot was typically played as far down the left as possible, and the only real way to reach the green in two was to cut the dogleg from the tee.  I played a lot of provisional balls off that tee.)

Yes, I have hit two straight drives OB.  I'm not sure who gains by that.  Especially if I have to walk back to the tee.

And if you've played "several" courses like that, how often is that?  Say you've play 50 rounds a year, and encounter this three times a year, and every time you see this it changes your incentive.  That's what, once every three hundred holes?

[dsc123]

[Dave2512]

Originally Posted by MEfree

I am not saying that isn't how it should be...all I am saying is that my proposed rules wouldn't change that- pros would still keep it in play and high cappers wouldn't.  You aren't going to see an 18 capper beat Tiger playing under my rules.

On the course you play most often Dave, how many holes would you change your strategy if you were playing under my rules?

It would definitely change the way I play because the risk would be minimized. I suspect a rule change like that would also affect course ratings. The big one for me would be OB. If I wasn't concerned about stroke and distance I'd take more chances than I do. Not just with club selection but how I hit it. There are some holes on courses I play where the of risk just picking up one stroke would be justified.

I was thinking about this thread last night as I was playing 9. I looked at the proximity of all the OB and other obstacles on the front, but mainly the OB since it's been such a hot topic. On the front there's only one hole where OB isn't in play, #1. The following 8 all have at least one edge where balls can exit the course. It actually made me question whether this particular course is rated correctly. I assume it is because the USGA requires it to be verified every ten years. But it was enough to send an email to the head pro to ask about it.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by MEfree

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave2512

But isn't that how it should be? There's more to it than skill. It's the ability to make decisions on the course based on your skill relative to the difficulty of the course, including the ability to avoid obstacles. It makes sense that better players would avoid trouble. Some of it is due to their reasoning, their ability to exercise control and evaluate risk.

I am not saying that isn't how it should be...all I am saying is that my proposed rules wouldn't change that- pros would still keep it in play and high cappers wouldn't.  You aren't going to see an 18 capper beat Tiger playing under my rules.

On the course you play most often Dave, how many holes would you change your strategy if you were playing under my rules?

Which has nothing to do with anything.  You keep trying to make it sound better by this odd fixation you have about comparing pros and amateurs.  I'm an amateur, (and by handicap comparison, never as good a player as you are) and I don't think that we need different rules.  I played 22 years of amateur competition by the rules with a whole lot of other amateurs who felt as I do.

Strategy has nothing to do with it.  I never play with the plan to incur a penalty.  I play with the intent of getting the best result, an sometimes that means flirting with a penalty.  That may be skirting a hazard, or it may be risking OB, or a lost ball to accomplish my goal.  What I don't want to see, and what I feel would not be beneficial for the game, is a risk reward decision which equates the two types of issues.  As Dave said, risk evaluation is a big part of the game.  Some would say that it's the single biggest factor in course management.  You want to completely remove an entire level of risk.

I don't think that your easy rules for amateurs would make a whit of difference in how most weekend hackers play the game.  They don't play by the rules now and they still won't by your rules.  They simply don't care.  And for formal, by the rules competitions, the current rules work just fine.

Admit it.  All of this really came about because you missed out on a PB because of a lost ball and you want to skip the distance part of the penalty so that next time you maybe make it.  The trouble is, it won't really be a new PB because it would be played under a very different penalty structure than your previous PB.

Originally Posted by dsc123

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Contrived?  But these proposed rules changes aren't contrived?   That's about all I have to say to you about that.  Have you  ever stood on the tee and hit more than one ball out of bounds before finally getting a ball in play?  Yet now you want the get out of jail free card.  Maybe you should just stick with Monopoly.

(And yes, I've played several courses with doglegs which hook around and OB area.  A course close to my house in Denver had exactly such a par 5 hole.  The tee shot was typically played as far down the left as possible, and the only real way to reach the green in two was to cut the dogleg from the tee.  I played a lot of provisional balls off that tee.)

Yes, I have hit two straight drives OB.  I'm not sure who gains by that.  Especially if I have to walk back to the tee.

And if you've played "several" courses like that, how often is that?  Say you've play 50 rounds a year, and encounter this three times a year, and every time you see this it changes your incentive.  That's what, once every three hundred holes?

And you want this changed, not so that you don't have to go back, but so that you don't have to face that risk ever again.  If you are honest with yourself, you will admit that.

What difference does it make how many?  If there is even one then that is all it takes for this to be a bad idea.  I've never bothered to count them but suffice it to say that I've played at least 10 courses which would have this possibility on one or more holes.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

You make the assumption that the second ball from the original spot would not take the same detour as the first.  You fail to consider the fundamental difference between a ball in play and a ball out of bounds (thus not in play).  A fundamental part of the game is keeping your ball in play (and I'm not talking about being "playable", I'm talking about the rules definition of ball in play).

No, I am not making any assumptions, nor am I failing to consider the differences.  And I believe you're making a bit of a circular argument when you say "you cannot propose to change a rule because then it would be against the current rule."  Of course it's different from the current rules, it's a rule CHANGE.  But there is still nothing FUNDAMENTALLY different in how most people would play if the distance part of stroke and distance were taken out of the equation.

And in regards to all of your careless friends who would start cutting corners willy-nilly if the rule was changed ... so what?  They are still exhibiting crappy course management strategy and you are still going to continue to beat them.  (So they'll average 7's on that par 5 instead of 8's)  Perhaps their handicaps will drop 1/2 stroke if they play those particular courses all of the time, just like I could get my handicap to drop 2 or 3 shots if I started exclusively playing the courses around here that don't have OB or hazards lining every hole.

It's simply an optional rule change, and I believe it has its merits.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Dave2512

It would definitely change the way I play because the risk would be minimized. I suspect a rule change like that would also affect course ratings. The big one for me would be OB. If I wasn't concerned about stroke and distance I'd take more chances than I do. Not just with club selection but how I hit it. There are some holes on courses I play where the of risk just picking up one stroke would be justified.

I was thinking about this thread last night as I was playing 9. I looked at the proximity of all the OB and other obstacles on the front, but mainly the OB since it's been such a hot topic. On the front there's only one hole where OB isn't in play, #1. The following 8 all have at least one edge where balls can exit the course. It actually made me question whether this particular course is rated correctly. I assume it is because the USGA requires it to be verified every ten years. But it was enough to send an email to the head pro to ask about it.

I agree that course ratings might go down fractionally for some layouts.  I think the bigger difference would be with slopes as high cappers are likely the ones getting assessed fewer penalty strokes under my rules.

So how many of those 9 holes would you actually play differently under my rules?

The front 9 at Keystone River has relatively generous fairway size, but has

OB- both sides on 1, 2, 4, 8 and 9

OB on one side and hazard on the other on 3, 5, 6 and 7

All the holes also have a hazard or OB over the green

I often hit less than Driver currently, but of those 9 holes all with OB, #2 is really the only one I MIGHT play differently and get more aggressive under my proposed rules depending on which tees I was on and how the wind was blowing.  The back 9 has a bit less OB and I don't think there are any holes that I would play differently.  Similar thing for me at Keystone Ranch- I would likely play all the holes with the same strategy with the exception of #11 which i usually go for, but not always.  With less of a OB/LB penalty I would go for this a higher % of the time.  So overall, I imagine that I would change my playing strategy less than 5% of the time (less than 1 shot per round is my guess).

What about the rest of you.  How often would you change your playing strategy with less of an OB/LB penalty?

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

You make the assumption that the second ball from the original spot would not take the same detour as the first.  You fail to consider the fundamental difference between a ball in play and a ball out of bounds (thus not in play).  A fundamental part of the game is keeping your ball in play (and I'm not talking about being "playable", I'm talking about the rules definition of ball in play).

No, I am not making any assumptions, nor am I failing to consider the differences.  And I believe you're making a bit of a circular argument when you say "you cannot propose to change a rule because then it would be against the current rule."  Of course it's different from the current rules, it's a rule CHANGE.  But there is still nothing FUNDAMENTALLY different in how most people would play if the distance part of stroke and distance were taken out of the equation.

And in regards to all of your careless friends who would start cutting corners willy-nilly if the rule was changed ... so what?  They are still exhibiting crappy course management strategy and you are still going to continue to beat them.  (So they'll average 7's on that par 5 instead of 8's)  Perhaps their handicaps will drop 1/2 stroke if they play those particular courses all of the time, just like I could get my handicap to drop 2 or 3 shots if I started exclusively playing the courses around here that don't have OB or hazards lining every hole.

It's simply an optional rule change, and I believe it has its merits.

How can you call it "crappy course management" if the reward for success outweighs the penalty for failure?  That's the very definition for good course management.  If success puts me in position for a possible eagle or certain birdie, while failure still leaves me with a reasonable shot at par, or bogey at worst, I'm taking that risk every day of the week.  However, if I'm risking a double bogey or worse while hoping for an outside shot at an eagle or birdie, I'm going to think long and hard before I take the chance.  I'll have to really need that eagle before I take the risk.

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

And you want this changed, not so that you don't have to go back, but so that you don't have to face that risk ever again.  If you are honest with yourself, you will admit that.

lol, stick to contrived examples where imaginary rules would ruin the game for you once every 20 rounds because you're a terrible mind-reader.  I'm not very good, but I don't hit two tee shots out of bounds often enough to worry about it very much.  If that is what this was really about it wouldn't have taken 74 posts before it was mentioned.

As I said, I think this is most applicable in cases where a ball is not OB but is lost.  My frustration comes when I hit a ball into the rough but safe, but then can't find the ball for whatever reason.  Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place, maybe its just hiding beneath my nose, maybe somebody took it.  I didn't hit a provisional because I saw where it went and was sure it was safe.  I don't have spotters like the pros.  If I put in the 5 minute search allowed by the rules, then there's probably a group on the tee waiting.  I usually walk my rounds (which might make it harder to find the ball since i can't cover as much ground as quickly).  I think the rules should allow me to drop where I think it landed.

Originally Posted by Fourputt

What difference does it make how many?  If there is even one then that is all it takes for this to be a bad idea.  I've never bothered to count them but suffice it to say that I've played at least 10 courses which would have this possibility on one or more holes.

Well, the discussion is whether it would fundamentally change the nature of the game.  So if you encounter this once in every 300 holes, its probably not a very big deal.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Dave2512

It actually made me question whether this particular course is rated correctly. I assume it is because the USGA requires it to be verified every ten years. But it was enough to send an email to the head pro to ask about it.

I wouldn't imagine that course ratings would be affected much, if at all, by the presence of OB.  The ratings are based on how a scratch golfer would score on that particular course, and scratch golfers tend to keep it in play most of the time.  I guess, though, that the slope could certainly change since that has to do with bogey golfers, I believe.

OTOH, in my experience, it seems that wildness off the tee isn't much of a consideration in ratings simply because the courses I play that I consider easy (parallel holes, minimal, if any OB) seem like they should be rated much easier than the ones where each hole has trouble on all sides, but they really aren't.  I get the impression that length and water are the biggest factors determining course ratings.

Originally Posted by Fourputt

What difference does it make how many?  If there is even one then that is all it takes for this to be a bad idea.

Why do you automatically equate 'different' with 'bad?'  I think that is the fundamental difference between the 2 camps here.  Any change to the set-in-stone rules that everybody holds so dearly is blasphemous (not counting curbing advancing trends like big drivers, grooves, and anchored putters).  No amount of arguing is going to convince you that there may be some merit to this idea (in a sense that it just really doesn't affect the game that much).

[Dave2512]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

just like I could get my handicap to drop 2 or 3 shots if I started exclusively playing the courses around here that don't have OB or hazards lining every hole.

Aren't these courses rated lower due to the reduced difficulty? I play some easy courses, the lower scores don't usually translate into lower differentials.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave2512

I don't think they do. These things aren't decided randomly.

Sometimes probably not.  Obviously a course cannot go OFF their own property to consider something playable.  They can't require that Old Man Johnson allow everybody to take giant divots out of his front lawn.  However, within the confines of their own property, certainly they can make decisions on where they want you to play or not to play.  I've played courses that have added areas of OB that weren't there before, and I played a tournament at a course that called all of the brush areas hazards that weren't marked as hazards prior to that.

And because of that, because I feel that it's arbitrary enough, I don't see how bringing an OB penalty back in line with an ESA hazard penalty (you cannot play it, you have to take the penalty and drop, you just don't get punished the distance) fundamentally changes anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave2512

But isn't that how it should be? There's more to it than skill. It's the ability to make decisions on the course based on your skill relative to the difficulty of the course, including the ability to avoid obstacles. It makes sense that better players would avoid trouble. Some of it is due to their reasoning, their ability to exercise control and evaluate risk.

But nobody is talking about eliminating penalties, just refining them slightly.  OB would still be an obstacle.  I'll repeat what I said to fourputt ... I don't try "less hard" to avoid hazards than I do to avoid OB.  It's all penal, and I try to avoid all of it at all costs.  Sometimes, unfortunately, I don't, and based on my belief that it's somewhat arbitrary in nature, I don't see why the penalties couldn't be similar.

Really? If there's a hazard left and OB right, you don't do anything to favor the left side?

Originally Posted by boogielicious

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman

Perhaps it should be recognised that Nicklaus was not any sort of authority on the rules of the game from which he earned his lifestyle.

The rules make the game. What would be the point of Snakes and Ladders without the snakes?

Just because a player has no idea of course management, why should the rules be changed to accommodate him?

I wasn't aware of anyone being put in prison or sent to the chair for not following the RoG. Play it whatever way you like (which is unlikely to be the way everyone else likes) but don't say you are playing the same game as tournament players.

But he was the best player to ever play the game that the rules define.  He had a specific opinion on the OB rule thinking it should be changed, as I pointed out in my first post.  Just because he wasn't a rules guru, doesn't mean his opinion should be be considered.  I am paraphrasing but he said something like "A player should not be penalized extra just because the course doesn't own the property."  He was referring to issues with pace of play.

I play by the rules and will continue to play by them.  I understand the reasoning behind the OB rules and abide by them, but see both sides of the debate having validity.

I think you meant to write, "doesn't mean his opinion should not be be considered" - but I actually think it's correct as written. He's just one person who happened to play golf really well - that doesn't mean his opinion on rules should have any more weight.

[Dave2512]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I wouldn't imagine that course ratings would be affected much, if at all, by the presence of OB.  The ratings are based on how a scratch golfer would score on that particular course, and scratch golfers tend to keep it in play most of the time.  I guess, though, that the slope could certainly change since that has to do with bogey golfers, I believe.

From the USGA.

Each obstacle is assigned a value of 0 to 10, depending on its relation to how a scratch or bogey golfer would play the hole. When the evaluation is complete, the numbers for each hole's obstacles are totaled and multiplied by a relative weighting factor. The weighted obstacle stroke values are applied to scratch and bogey formulas and then converted to strokes. Those strokes are added or subtracted from the Yardage Rating to produce a Bogey Rating and USGA Course Rating, and the difference between those two values multiplied by a constant factor is the Slope Rating.

Did you read this?

http://www.usga.org/handicapping/course_ratings/ratings_primer/Course-Rating-Primer/

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

How can you call it "crappy course management" if the reward for success outweighs the penalty for failure?  That's the very definition for good course management.  If success puts me in position for a possible eagle or certain birdie, while failure still leaves me with a reasonable shot at par, or bogey at worst, I'm taking that risk every day of the week.  However, if I'm risking a double bogey or worse while hoping for an outside shot at an eagle or birdie, I'm going to think long and hard before I take the chance.  I'll have to really need that eagle before I take the risk.

Fair enough.  I'll give you that one.

I'll stick to my stance that since course B could have an identical situation, however, since they just happen to own the property beyond the dogleg, they choose to call it a hazard, and that is arbitrary enough that I think the penalties could be the same.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Strategy has nothing to do with it.  I never play with the plan to incur a penalty.  I play with the intent of getting the best result, an sometimes that means flirting with a penalty.  That may be skirting a hazard, or it may be risking OB, or a lost ball to accomplish my goal.  What I don't want to see, and what I feel would not be beneficial for the game, is a risk reward decision which equates the two types of issues.  As Dave said, risk evaluation is a big part of the game.  Some would say that it's the single biggest factor in course management.  You want to completely remove an entire level of risk.

I don't think that your easy rules for amateurs would make a whit of difference in how most weekend hackers play the game.  They don't play by the rules now and they still won't by your rules.  They simply don't care.  And for formal, by the rules competitions, the current rules work just fine.

Admit it.  All of this really came about because you missed out on a PB because of a lost ball and you want to skip the distance part of the penalty so that next time you maybe make it.  The trouble is, it won't really be a new PB because it would be played under a very different penalty structure than your previous PB.

And you want this changed, not so that you don't have to go back, but so that you don't have to face that risk ever again.  If you are honest with yourself, you will admit that.

What difference does it make how many?  If there is even one then that is all it takes for this to be a bad idea.  I've never bothered to count them but suffice it to say that I've played at least 10 courses which would have this possibility on one or more holes.

I am not sure what you mean when you say "Strategy has nothing to do with it"  I agree that having risk reward decisions is good for the game of golf (especially at the highest level).  To me, risk-reward decisions are part of strategy and overall course management which involves things like missing in good locations, keeping yourself below the hole, etc.  You are correct that taking away the elevated penalty of an OB/LB compared to a hazard does remove one nuance of course management, but there is so much more to good course management that I think it will still play an essential role in the game.

My proposal has nothing to do with not shooting a personal best the other day.  Fact of the matter is that I have been talking about rules simplification for a while now and really didn't deserve to shoot a PB as I hit the ball poorly the back 9.  I do agree that the yard stick for personal best would change slightly under my rules in much the same way as the yard stick changes based on the course/tees/weather condition/etc you are playing.  i.e. Last year I shot 73 in the Forward Tees Experiment with 3 OB/LB- I realize that had I been playing under my rules that might have been a 70, 71 or 72 without me actually playing any better.  OTOH, had I been playing the back tees that day, I might have shot 78.

I feel that the game would be improved by no longer having players go back to re-play shots- under my rules, this isn't even an option which I think is a good thing for pace of play.

Whether it is risk evaluation or evaluating a new rules proposal, you have to look at both the pros and cons of each option.  Most proposals are going to have both positive and negative ramifications.  To say that a proposal is bad if there is even one hole where the strategic decision making is affected is really being pig headed and looking at things with blinders on.  That would sort of be like saying you will never hit driver off a tee that has any OB whatsoever regardless of what the reward might be for hitting a driver instead of an iron.

[boogielicious]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Really? If there's a hazard left and OB right, you don't do anything to favor the left side?

I think you meant to write, "doesn't mean his opinion should not be be considered" - but I actually think it's correct as written. He's just one person who happened to play golf really well - that doesn't mean his opinion on rules should have any more weight.

Sorry, typed too fast.  Peyton Manning didn't like the way defenses were defending against his receivers, so Bill Polian had the rules of NFL football changed.  His opinion had more weight than those of defensive coordinators.  I do consider Jack Nicklaus' opinion to have more weight than most.  He has played at a greater level and understands the game far better than 99.99% of golfers ever.  He played by those rules, but feels tweaking a few would help.

[Rulesman]

Originally Posted by Dave2512

From the USGA.

Each obstacle is assigned a value of 0 to 10, depending on its relation to how a scratch or bogey golfer would play the hole. When the evaluation is complete, the numbers for each hole's obstacles are totaled and multiplied by a relative weighting factor. The weighted obstacle stroke values are applied to scratch and bogey formulas and then converted to strokes. Those strokes are added or subtracted from the Yardage Rating to produce a Bogey Rating and USGA Course Rating, and the difference between those two values multiplied by a constant factor is the Slope Rating.

Did you read this?

http://www.usga.org/handicapping/course_ratings/ratings_primer/Course-Rating-Primer/

In fact the length virtually determines the final rating on its own. The stroke adjustment is rarely more than about 1 stroke either way.

As the book says "For all golfers, regardless of ability, yardage is the most significant factor to overcome."