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

[Dave2512]

Originally Posted by Rulesman

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."

It also says "But rating teams also pay close attention to a course's characteristics, called obstacle factors, that can make each hole more difficult or easier. These represent the most important assessments made by a rating team."

I'm not sure how they factor it but everything I've read leads me to believe it's not discounted. I do have a question, hopefully someone can answer it. If each obstacle is assigned a value how does that value relate to the penalty associated with each obstacle?

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by MEfree

Yes, but what if you are trying to score a personal best and prefer to do it by the actual rules rather than the ESC rules.  You have a group behind you and have no reason to suspect that you will not find a ball that you hit, but end up not finding it.  I thought you said in the personal best thread that it didn't count unless it was by the actual rules.

One of the thing I was aiming for with my proposed rules was that a player would never have to walk back to re-hit a shot.  I follow the current rules as much as I can, but doing when playing with others never seems too popular and it one rule that I have broken on numerous occasions.

Then do so.,  Or if you choose to not follow the rules then you do not set a personal best - simple as that.  It is like when a pro wants to compete for the Vardon Trophy but withdraws in the middle of a round.  If you do that you are no longer eligible.  If you don't play by the rules then you aren't eligible to set a personal best.  In the instant case, your score is not the score with ESC, that is your score for posting purposes.  Your actual score is DQ.

I really wonder why you even play the game at all, since all you seem to do is grouse about the rules.  Why not devote your energies to a game whose rules are more simpatico with your way of thinking?

[Golfingdad]

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 guess, a tiny bit, but moreso, I would, at all costs, attempt to avoid both.  Meaning, if I had no bail out on either side of the fairway then I'd hit a 3 wood, or an iron ... whatever I could do to stay out of trouble.

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

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.

I disagree ... I think respected members of in their fields should have their opinion weighted a little more.  That said, even if you were right ... that would mean the opposite is also true.  The opinions of nobodys like Mefree, fourputt, you, and me should not have any LESS weight. :)

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by boogielicious

Quote:

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.

I disagree that having the ability to hit the ball at a very high level automatically makes Nicklaus an expert on rules, nor on the effect that changing them would have on the handicap system or the game itself. As Rulesman pointed out, Nicklaus wasn't any sort of authority on the rules of the game. I'd say people like Rulesman and Fourputt are way more qualified simply because they *have* made a study of that.

(Oh, and according to his quote below, he doesn't want to just tweak a few rules...)

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

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.

I disagree ... I think respected members of in their fields should have their opinion weighted a little more.

Nicklaus is respected for being a good player, not for being a rules guru. One has virtually nothing to do with the other, IMO.

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

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.

That said, even if you were right ... that would mean the opposite is also true.  The opinions of nobodys like Mefree, fourputt, you, and me should not have any LESS weight. :)

Agreed: Just as I don't think the opinions of good, well-known golfers carry more weight, I don't think the opinions of bad, nobody golfers carry any less weight. What carries weight is a sound, logical argument based on facts and experience with the rules. I've never heard Nicklaus give an argument that swayed me. All I've heard is him whining about how hard to understand the rules are (something I don't agree with at all):

“Probably the whole book of the rules of golf should be changed,” Nicklaus said on Golf Channel’s Morning Drive program Wednesday. “If you try to figure it out, it should be common sense, yet common sense never seems to prevail "

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

I disagree that having the ability to hit the ball at a very high level automatically makes Nicklaus an expert on rules, nor on the effect that changing them would have on the handicap system or the game itself. As Rulesman pointed out, Nicklaus wasn't any sort of authority on the rules of the game. I'd say people like Rulesman and Fourputt are way more qualified simply because they *have* made a study of that.

Its not that his talent makes him more knowledgeable about the rules; its that he spent his entire life playing in tournaments governed by the rules and has likely seen every imaginable circumstance occur during a tournament where the rules were the rules were being strictly enforced.  Therefore, he is likely very familiar with them.

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Nicklaus is respected for being a good player, not for being a rules guru. One has virtually nothing to do with the other, IMO.

The point is that he is an expert on GOLF and that his opinions about what GOLF should be carry weight.

[Rulesman]

Originally Posted by Dave2512

It also says "But rating teams also pay close attention to a course's characteristics, called obstacle factors, that can make each hole more difficult or easier. These represent the most important assessments made by a rating team."

I'm not sure how they factor it but everything I've read leads me to believe it's not discounted. I do have a question, hopefully someone can answer it. If each obstacle is assigned a value how does that value relate to the penalty associated with each obstacle?

They pay close attention to the obstacle factors because they can be quite difficult to evaluate. Relative to length, which is very straightforward.

The relationship with penalties is marginal. The effect on the ability to play a shot to the green as a result of hindrance is the biggest factor in evaluating an obstacle.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by dsc123

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

I disagree that having the ability to hit the ball at a very high level automatically makes Nicklaus an expert on rules, nor on the effect that changing them would have on the handicap system or the game itself. As Rulesman pointed out, Nicklaus wasn't any sort of authority on the rules of the game. I'd say people like Rulesman and Fourputt are way more qualified simply because they *have* made a study of that.

Its not that his talent makes him more knowledgeable about the rules; its that he spent his entire life playing in tournaments governed by the rules and has likely seen every imaginable circumstance occur during a tournament where the rules were the rules were being strictly enforced.  Therefore, he is likely very familiar with them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Nicklaus is respected for being a good player, not for being a rules guru. One has virtually nothing to do with the other, IMO.

The point is that he is an expert on GOLF and that his opinions about what GOLF should be carry weight.

He's not an expert on RULES, other than his experience with playing under them. In that vein he has no more expertise than any other professional golfer, or even most amateur golfers who regularly play in tournaments - and he probably has less expertise than people like Rulesman and Fourputt (and myself to a lesser degree) who have actually studied the rules. All you need to do is read through the Rules and Decisions one time, and you'll have just as much knowledge of Nicklaus with respect to every imaginable circumstance.

Nicklaus says the rules don't use "common sense". I find it hard to believe that anyone who has a good understanding of the rules would say that. He just sounds to me like a grumpy old man (not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm one myself) who doesn't understand that the rules do make sense, and that "simplifying" them, while still keeping them equitable and not significantly changing the game, is harder than it sounds.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

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).

That is correct, because I don't see a need for any of this .  The only reason I'm still discussing it is because I'm down here on an island with no golf course, so all I can do is talk golf to get my fix.

I will always be opposed to any such weakening of the penalty structure.  This change would eliminate one third of the double and triple and worse bogies (because that's about the percentage which are caused by stroke and distance penalties) in competition play without having any effect on the casual player (because he doesn't follow the rules now, so why cater to him?).   For that reason alone it is a complete fail in my mind.

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

He's not an expert on RULES, other than his experience with playing under them. In that vein he has no more expertise than any other professional golfer, or even most amateur golfers who regularly play in tournaments - and he probably has less expertise than people like Rulesman and Fourputt (and myself to a lesser degree) who have actually studied the rules. All you need to do is read through the Rules and Decisions one time, and you'll have just as much knowledge of Nicklaus with respect to every imaginable circumstance.

Nicklaus says the rules don't use "common sense". I find it hard to believe that anyone who has a good understanding of the rules would say that. He just sounds to me like a grumpy old man (not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm one myself) who doesn't understand that the rules do make sense, and that "simplifying" them, while still keeping them equitable and not significantly changing the game, is harder than it sounds.

You don't make any sense.  What is your point by repeatedly asserting that you know the rules of golf better than Jack? Its kind of funny because every time you say it I picture you closing your eyes and tapping your heels together hoping that it comes true.  But I dont see the relevance. This is not a discussion about what the rules are or how they are applied.  This is a discussion about whether this proposed rule would simply the game, without fundamentally changing it.  Its also a discussion about whether GOLF would be improved by eliminating stroke and distance.  You have not explained how a deeper understanding of the rules would affect either of those.

You're also probably wrong. If the rules are clear and sufficiently simple, then why do you need to "study" the rules to understand them? If the rules are clear and simple, then why would someone who has played as much professional golf as Jack not understand them?

I swear if you respond to this by saying "Jack isn't an expert on the RULES" ......

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

That is correct, because I don't see a need for any of this.  The only reason I'm still discussing it is because I'm down here on an island with no golf course, so all I can do is talk golf to get my fix.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

He's not an expert on RULES, other than his experience with playing under them. In that vein he has no more expertise than any other professional golfer, or even most amateur golfers who regularly play in tournaments - and he probably has less expertise than people like Rulesman and Fourputt (and myself to a lesser degree) who have actually studied the rules. All you need to do is read through the Rules and Decisions one time, and you'll have just as much knowledge of Nicklaus with respect to every imaginable circumstance.

Nicklaus says the rules don't use "common sense". I find it hard to believe that anyone who has a good understanding of the rules would say that. He just sounds to me like a grumpy old man (not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm one myself) who doesn't understand that the rules do make sense, and that "simplifying" them, while still keeping them equitable and not significantly changing the game, is harder than it sounds.

I have an awfully hard time agreeing with this one.  That would be like saying that somebody who's just graduated from college with straight A's is just as much an expert in engineering as somebody who has been practicing for 30 or 40 years.

Experience counts for an awful lot in my book.  Way more than reading it in a book.

Originally Posted by Fourputt

That is correct, because I don't see a need for any of this.  The only reason I'm still discussing it is because I'm down here on an island with no golf course, so all I can do is talk golf to get my fix.

I will always be opposed to any such weakening of the penalty structure.  This change would eliminate one third of the double and triple and worse bogies (because that's about the percentage which are caused by stroke and distance penalties) in competition play without having any effect on the casual player (because he doesn't follow the rules now, so why cater to him?).   For that reason alone it is a complete fail in my mind.

Is it a weakening of the penalty structure, or simply a change?  You strike me as simply a 'purist,' for lack of a better word.  Nothing wrong with that, but I don't think it's really people trying to make the game simpler that bothers you.

If Mefree kept having issues with getting beat by long hitters who just bomb it into hazards, take their penalties and play on, and still beat him, and he proposed that ALL penalties should be stroke and distance, I assume you wouldn't be too keen on that either, right?

And how does talking golf with all of us morons really give you your fix?  Seems to me like talking about golf all the time without being able to play it would make it worse for me.

[Just a reminder:  I enjoy talking about this kind of stuff, debating, joking, whatever, and am taking nothing too serious and hopefully nobody else is either ;)]

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

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 guess, a tiny bit, but moreso, I would, at all costs, attempt to avoid both.  Meaning, if I had no bail out on either side of the fairway then I'd hit a 3 wood, or an iron ... whatever I could do to stay out of trouble.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

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.

I disagree ... I think respected members of in their fields should have their opinion weighted a little more.  That said, even if you were right ... that would mean the opposite is also true.  The opinions of nobodys like Mefree, fourputt, you, and me should not have any LESS weight. :)

Jack has always been my golfing idol, but that notwithstanding, his specialties are playing golf and building golf courses, not rules expertise.  I've probably had more training in the rules than he has, and I'm still wrong often enough for it to bother me.

This issue goes beyond simply knowing the rules of play.  It goes to the fundamental structure which the game is built on, and I consider that to be inviolate.  Back in the early '60s they briefly rescinded the distance part of the penalty for a ball OB.  The experiment lasted less than 4 years.  It was simply not equitable with the basic precepts of the game.  It still isn't.  Even with that experiment they were smart enough to leave the lost ball rule alone.  Trying to manage that without the replay penalty would lead to some truly ludicrous drops.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Back in the early '60s they briefly rescinded the distance part of the penalty for a ball OB.  The experiment lasted less than 4 years.  It was simply not equitable with the basic precepts of the game.  It still isn't.  Even with that experiment they were smart enough to leave the lost ball rule alone.  Trying to manage that without the replay penalty would lead to some truly ludicrous drops.

Hey, no fair!  Why did you wait until now to drop this bomb on us.  Seems awfully relevant to the discussion.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Jack has always been my golfing idol, but that notwithstanding, his specialties are playing golf and building golf courses, not rules expertise.  I've probably had more training in the rules than he has, and I'm still wrong often enough for it to bother me.

This issue goes beyond simply knowing the rules of play.  It goes to the fundamental structure which the game is built on, and I consider that to be inviolate.  Back in the early '60s they briefly rescinded the distance part of the penalty for a ball OB.  The experiment lasted less than 4 years.  It was simply not equitable with the basic precepts of the game.  It still isn't.  Even with that experiment they were smart enough to leave the lost ball rule alone.  Trying to manage that without the replay penalty would lead to some truly ludicrous drops.

I consider you to be a rules expert and the fact that you are wrong often enough for it to bother you tells me something.

I was aware of the OB rule change in the 60s but that is before my time and I would like to know more about why they changed back.  Any details you have are appreciated.  The biggest flaw that I see with that experiment is that there were DIFFERENT rules for a lost ball and OB.  Say I hit one in the right hand trees with OB right and don't find it.  I would much rather that I hit it really bad and be certain that it is OB rather than sorta bad and not be sure whether it was lost in the trees or OB.

The reason I think OB, lost balls and hazards should be treated the same under the rules is the potential uncertainty about whether a ball is lost, OB or in a hazard.  The Keystone course I play may be an extreme example, but I would say that you are less than 99% certain between 1/3 to 1/2 of time whether a ball is lost, OB or in a hazard.  I know that when I go searching for off line shots, I often find multiple balls (sometimes even my own ) in hazards, through the green and OB (often times this are close to hazard and/or OB lines).

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Jack has always been my golfing idol, but that notwithstanding, his specialties are playing golf and building golf courses, not rules expertise.  I've probably had more training in the rules than he has, and I'm still wrong often enough for it to bother me.

This issue goes beyond simply knowing the rules of play.  It goes to the fundamental structure which the game is built on, and I consider that to be inviolate.  Back in the early '60s they briefly rescinded the distance part of the penalty for a ball OB.  The experiment lasted less than 4 years.  It was simply not equitable with the basic precepts of the game.  It still isn't.  Even with that experiment they were smart enough to leave the lost ball rule alone.  Trying to manage that without the replay penalty would lead to some truly ludicrous drops.

I think Jack may have won a few of his majors during that experiment.  For those of you who think it is a game other than golf if not played under the current rules, maybe you can help Tiger build a case that Jack did not really win as many GOLF majors as most people claim.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by MEfree

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Jack has always been my golfing idol, but that notwithstanding, his specialties are playing golf and building golf courses, not rules expertise.  I've probably had more training in the rules than he has, and I'm still wrong often enough for it to bother me.

This issue goes beyond simply knowing the rules of play.  It goes to the fundamental structure which the game is built on, and I consider that to be inviolate.  Back in the early '60s they briefly rescinded the distance part of the penalty for a ball OB.  The experiment lasted less than 4 years.  It was simply not equitable with the basic precepts of the game.  It still isn't.  Even with that experiment they were smart enough to leave the lost ball rule alone.  Trying to manage that without the replay penalty would lead to some truly ludicrous drops.

I think Jack may have won a few of his majors during that experiment.  For those of you who think it is a game other than golf if not played under the current rules, maybe you can help Tiger build a case that Jack did not really win as many GOLF majors as most people claim.

That point would only apply if Jack had to play under that rule during one of those wins.  I seriously doubt that he hit any ball out of bounds during a major win.

Originally Posted by MEfree

I was aware of the OB rule change in the 60s but that is before my time and I would like to know more about why they changed back.  Any details you have are appreciated.  The biggest flaw that I see with that experiment is that there were DIFFERENT rules for a lost ball and OB.  Say I hit one in the right hand trees with OB right and don't find it.  I would much rather that I hit it really bad and be certain that it is OB rather than sorta bad and not be sure whether it was lost in the trees or OB.

It was changed back because it was not considered to be equitable to have the same penalty for a ball which was not on the course as for a ball which was on the course but in a hazard - in other words it was wrong to penalize a ball in play as severely as a ball out of play.  Out of bounds and lost balls are both out of play, so the penalty should be stiffer to balance the offense.  The same thing I've been saying all along here.

[Dave2512]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Is it a weakening of the penalty structure, or simply a change?

Depends exactly what the change actually was. Changing the stroke and distance penalty would significantly alter the game for me. Hitting 3 from the tee is a score killer, the distance effectively adds another stroke in most instances. Something that would be difficult to measure but I feel has relevance is how saving even one stroke affects a players ability to stay focused. A big reason I try to avoid OB is the mental factor. It comes in the form of pressure to recover from it, in my case usually not less than double bogey and often something higher. As someone with the highest percentage of scores coming as bogeys if I could escape from OB trouble with that result I'd be relieved. Personally that would have a bigger impact on me than the potential to take on risks I usually wouldn't.

[newtogolf]

I've only played golf by the rules for a little over two years, I know the rules pretty well, refer to the rules when I'm not sure and appreciate the importance of playing by the rules.   I've read the entire thread and what I see is;

One side arguing for changes to rules to speed up pace of play and make the game simpler to follow the rules for the average non-pro golfer who doesn't have a rules official to consult with on every hole.

The other side arguing that the rules were written as they were with a purpose and alteration of those rules would significantly impact the game as we know it today.

I believe both sides are right, the rules are what we must play by, but what sense is having a big book of rules if only 15% of the people playing the sport actually follow all of the rules because some are just not feasible to follow on the average muni / public course.

Rules in all sports change over time to reflect changes in the people playing the sport, technology, etc.  When the USGA and R&A; wrote the rules, pace of play may not have been a major concern.  They might have believed 50 years ago that it was perfectly acceptable to have someone go back to a tee box to hit another ball, but it's not today.  Maybe 5 hour rounds of golf were acceptable in 1970, but you see just on this site people complaining if a round takes more than four hours and most would prefer if it was closer to 3 hours.

The R&A; / USGA have to evolve the rules not for the pro's but for the average guys that would like to play by the rules but are unable to because everyone is up in arms about pace of play.   As for the ESC argument, no one ever wants to use ESC when they're out there playing, that's not why we're out there.