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

[No Mulligans]

And I found it on Amazon... $52.92.  It is hardback though.

It is $3.00 plus $6.50 shipping (least expensive shipping available) on the USGA site.

[DaveP043]

The USGA has the hardcover for $19.95, if you're interested

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

The USGA has the hardcover for $19.95, if you're interested

I think it's the 2000 version. Not the third edition text…

[SG11118]

The topic of marking/lifting/cleaning on the putting green was brought up by several on pages 3 & 4 of this thread, but I'd like to bring it up for additional discussion.  I have the third edition of Tufts.  The second great principle of golf (in chapter 6) is to "put your ball in play at the start of the hole, play only your own ball and do not touch it until you lift it from the hole."  Later on in chapter 6, he quickly mentions the exceptions to this principle (including cleaning [rule 21]) without providing any discussion.  Did I miss something?  I didn't see any further discussion on this topic in any other chapters of the book nor any rationale why the exceptions to this principle (particularly lifting and cleaning on the putting surface) should be part of the rules. Did he go into any more detail in the first or second editions?  Obviously, this book doesn't cover everything, but it feels like his lack of discussion is trying to hide an exception that he cannot rationalize.  Why did the R&A/USGA allow for lifting and cleaning on the putting greens?  Was it simply to eliminate stymies?  Does anyone have any insight?

[iacas]

On 10/8/2013 at 3:39 PM, Fourputt said:

What you have to consider is that Tufts is focusing on the underlying principles, not the actual playing rules.  The rules depart from those principles as necessary to preserve the playability of the game.  The option of marking and lifting the ball from the green didn't come into the rules until greens became more well manicured, to the point that putting was more of a science than a mix of art and luck.   Because of that change in the way courses were maintained, dirt or mud or whatever on the ball had a  more direct and negative effect on play, thus a modification of the principle was reasonable.

This is how most rules evolve, and how the base principles have become separated from actual play in some respects.

Beyond the above, @SG11118, you'd probably have to talk with someone at the USGA or R&A about that. All we can really do is speculate a bit.

I think that the "proper playing" of the game doesn't really include a clump of mud attached to your ball when the idea is that you're going to be rolling it along a relatively smooth surface. So they see allowing you to lift, clean, and replace as a necessary modification.

[turtleback]

5 hours ago, iacas said:

Beyond the above, @SG11118, you'd probably have to talk with someone at the USGA or R&A about that. All we can really do is speculate a bit.

I think that the "proper playing" of the game doesn't really include a clump of mud attached to your ball when the idea is that you're going to be rolling it along a relatively smooth surface. So they see allowing you to lift, clean, and replace as a necessary modification.

The counter to that might be that by allowing the cleaning of the ball on the green a strategic element was eliminated from the game.  I think it was in the book the Greatest Game Ever Played where there was discussion of playing shots into the green differently when it was soft to avoid just such a thing low shots that would not pick up mud or plug as opposed to high shots which risked both.

[Asheville]

If we accept Rule 22 - Ball Assisting or Interfering with Play as necessary, I think that cleaning follows only because of the difficulty of enforcing a ban on not cleaning the ball.

[David in FL]

11 minutes ago, Asheville said:

If we accept Rule 22 - Ball Assisting or Interfering with Play as necessary, I think that cleaning follows only because of the difficulty of enforcing a ban on not cleaning the ball.

But the same could be said for the vast majority of rules, since golfers, for the most part, self police.  

[Asheville]

30 minutes ago, David in FL said:

But the same could be said for the vast majority of rules, since golfers, for the most part, self police.  

As far as the allowance to even lift the ball on the putting green, again, it's an easy way to allow the operation of R22.

If the Rules never permitted cleaning  the ball, then the player could never hold the ball in his hand or put the ball in his pocket. To be above suspicion, he'd have to ponce around with it held by two finger tips or place it aside. The permission to clean the ball on the putting green is just a practical matter.

 

[SG11118]

I found a little more related info from GD.  http://www.golfdigest.com/gallery/golf-notable-rules-changes-photos#3

The Lift & Clean Rule

We take marking, lifting and cleaning our golf balls for granted these days when we're on the green, but that wasn't always the case. Take the famous playoff at Merion in 1950 when Lloyd Mangrum was penalized two strokes on the 16th hole for lifting his ball to blow a bug off it. At the time, you could only lift a ball on the green in stroke play if it was in the way of another player putting (Some PGA-run events allowed a player to do so under a local rule). In 1960, the USGA changed the rule, allowing golfers to lift and clean their balls after marking on the green -- a decade too late for Mangrum.

[DaveP043]

 Assuming the following website is accurate, cleaning of the ball when marked on the putting green only became accepted under the rules in 1960.:

http://www.ruleshistory.com/green.html

Note that if you look at that website, clicking on the year will take you to a copy of the rules of that specific year.  Prior to 1960, cleaning was permitted in only very limited circumstances.  Marking of the ball, even on the green, was pretty limited.  Unqualified lifting of a ball on the green was first allowed in 1960.

In reviewing "The Principles..." I think its important to remember that Tufts wrote the book in the late 1950's and published it in 1961.  This isn't a list of principles that Tufts necessarily expected to be followed into the future, rather an explanation of what he believed were the principles that had guided the evolution of the rules up to that point in time.  Its quite possible that he didn't address lifting and cleaning of the ball in the original version of the book because the rule wasn't in effect at the time of writing.  As to why subsequent editions haven't included a discussion of the the evolution of these particular rules, I couldn't even guess.

[SG11118]

51 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

In reviewing "The Principles..." I think its important to remember that Tufts wrote the book in the late 1950's and published it in 1961.  This isn't a list of principles that Tufts necessarily expected to be followed into the future, rather an explanation of what he believed were the principles that had guided the evolution of the rules up to that point in time.  Its quite possible that he didn't address lifting and cleaning of the ball in the original version of the book because the rule wasn't in effect at the time of writing.  As to why subsequent editions haven't included a discussion of the the evolution of these particular rules, I couldn't even guess.

Maybe.  I will note that Tufts was part of the USGA delegation that negotiated the uniform rules with the R&A in 1959 though, so he was part of the decision-making to add cleaning on the putting surface into the rules.  With as passionate as he is about the rules, you'd think he would've found a way to elaborate on the reasons for an exception to the basic principles.

It probably makes the most sense that since marking the ball on the putting green wasn't really allowed except when interfering with play until 1956 - now in 1956 you have everyone marking their balls whenever they are on the green, and probably arguments over how careful the golfers need to be to not accidently remove mud from their ball.  It probably made some sense to put an end to these arguments and just allow cleaning - even if it was contrary to the basic Principles of Golf. 

Michigan State Library has all of the USGA Journals available online.  Several of the Journal articles in the 1959 timeframe describe the change to allow cleaning balls on the greens, but none of them give any rationale for the decision. 

Here is a link about Tufts work from a 1960 journal article:

http://gsrpdf.lib.msu.edu/ticpdf.py?file=/1960s/1960/600614.pdf

[DaveP043]

41 minutes ago, SG11118 said:

Maybe.  I will note that Tufts was part of the USGA delegation that negotiated the uniform rules with the R&A in 1959 though, so he was part of the decision-making to add cleaning on the putting surface into the rules.  With as passionate as he is about the rules, you'd think he would've found a way to elaborate on the reasons for an exception to the basic principles.

It probably makes the most sense that since marking the ball on the putting green wasn't really allowed except when interfering with play until 1956 - now in 1956 you have everyone marking their balls whenever they are on the green, and probably arguments over how careful the golfers need to be to not accidently remove mud from their ball.  It probably made some sense to put an end to these arguments and just allow cleaning - even if it was contrary to the basic Principles of Golf. 

Michigan State Library has all of the USGA Journals available online.  Several of the Journal articles in the 1959 timeframe describe the change to allow cleaning balls on the greens, but none of them give any rationale for the decision. 

Here is a link about Tufts work from a 1960 journal article:

http://gsrpdf.lib.msu.edu/ticpdf.py?file=/1960s/1960/600614.pdf

Now that I read back, the 1956 R&A Rules still don't allow marking the ball on the green in most circumstances, apparently that wasn't allowed until 1960.  Cleaning was allowed for a ball marked and lifted from the putting green in the same change, in 1960.  I agree that it makes sense to allow the ball to be cleaned when the ball is legally lifted.

http://www.ruleshistory.com/rules1956.html#11

http://www.ruleshistory.com/rules1960.html#23

I don't know when the USGA rules made these changes.  I think the first privately published version of "The Principles..." was made available by Mr. Tufts in 1959.  

That's a really cool resource for the old USGA publications, I'm going to bookmark it for later use.  (Edit) And just that quick, I found something that goes to the principles.  This article from 1960 discusses unlimited repair of ballmarks as the first "breech in the principle that the golfer must play the course as he finds it."  Interestingly, the article is written by Richard Tufts, who (I believe) discusses immovable obstructions and other issues in just the same context in the book.

http://gsrpdf.lib.msu.edu/ticpdf.py?file=/1960s/1960/601112.pdf

 

[natureboy]

1 hour ago, SG11118 said:

Maybe.  I will note that Tufts was part of the USGA delegation that negotiated the uniform rules with the R&A in 1959 though, so he was part of the decision-making to add cleaning on the putting surface into the rules.  With as passionate as he is about the rules, you'd think he would've found a way to elaborate on the reasons for an exception to the basic principles.

It probably makes the most sense that since marking the ball on the putting green wasn't really allowed except when interfering with play until 1956 - now in 1956 you have everyone marking their balls whenever they are on the green, and probably arguments over how careful the golfers need to be to not accidently remove mud from their ball.  It probably made some sense to put an end to these arguments and just allow cleaning - even if it was contrary to the basic Principles of Golf. 

Michigan State Library has all of the USGA Journals available online.  Several of the Journal articles in the 1959 timeframe describe the change to allow cleaning balls on the greens, but none of them give any rationale for the decision. 

Here is a link about Tufts work from a 1960 journal article:

http://gsrpdf.lib.msu.edu/ticpdf.py?file=/1960s/1960/600614.pdf

Maybe he thought it was an experiment that would be reversed in time (after some had read his book perhaps)?

It is surprising that he doesn't discuss it (just knowing it was being considered) when not lifting the ball until it's been holed is the 2nd great principle.

What does he say about the justification of cleaning the ball when lifted for a drop?

Edited October 25, 2016 by natureboy

[SG11118]

3 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

And just that quick, I found something that goes to the principles.  This article from 1960 discusses unlimited repair of ballmarks as the first "breech in the principle that the golfer must play the course as he finds it."  Interestingly, the article is written by Richard Tufts, who (I believe) discusses immovable obstructions and other issues in just the same context in the book.

http://gsrpdf.lib.msu.edu/ticpdf.py?file=/1960s/1960/601112.pdf

One of the other 1959 USGA articles had a California contingent of 5 handicap and greater golfers arguing that golf was too hard and the rules needed to be made easier.  It seems like that is Tufts biggest beef is at the end with the "Grand Experiment", but he also hits on the fixing of ball marks and other topics.

I guess if nothing else, the Principles book is maybe Tufts ideas of what golf should be, not what it really is?

[Fourputt]

35 minutes ago, SG11118 said:

One of the other 1959 USGA articles had a California contingent of 5 handicap and greater golfers arguing that golf was too hard and the rules needed to be made easier.  It seems like that is Tufts biggest beef is at the end with the "Grand Experiment", but he also hits on the fixing of ball marks and other topics.

I guess if nothing else, the Principles book is maybe Tufts ideas of what golf should be, not what it really is?

I don't think he makes any judgements on what it "should" be, only on how the fundamental principles are/were modified to fit the modern game, and how the rules evolved while still paying tribute to those principles.  

The period from the end of WWII until the 1960 rewriting of the rules is when the greens were really starting to change.  New grasses were being developed and they were being maintained tighter and faster, so that any foreign matter on the ball was more likely to have a negative affect on roll.  

Evolution of the rules has always required finding a balance between playability and adherence to the basic principles.  This is just another case of balancing - playability would be severely affected had they not allowed cleaning of the ball prior to playing a stroke on the putting green.  The potential negative effect on playability outweighs the small divergence from the base principle.

[natureboy]

21 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

when the greens were really starting to change.  New grasses were being developed and they were being maintained tighter and faster, so that any foreign matter on the ball was more likely to have a negative affect on roll.

How so? Doesn't the ball roll on the surface regardless of whether the green is slow or fast?

Or did you mean deviations in ball path from foreign matter on the ball became more apparent with faster greens, because they were buffeted less by the longer grass stems?

Edited October 25, 2016 by natureboy

[natureboy]

4 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

This article from 1960 discusses unlimited repair of ballmarks as the first "breech in the principle that the golfer must play the course as he finds it."  Interestingly, the article is written by Richard Tufts, who (I believe) discusses immovable obstructions and other issues in just the same context in the book.

http://gsrpdf.lib.msu.edu/ticpdf.py?file=/1960s/1960/601112.pdf

That is likely revealing about Tufts attitudes toward some of the changes in the air when he wrote the book.

It also shows his relative lack of familiarity with the issue of smaller golf courses and municipal courses with heavy play and a relative lack of funds.

His comment seems to view a golfer expected to repair a ball mark as either doing menial labor or perhaps taking away someone's livelihood. But allowing the relative mass of golfers (vs greenskeepers) to fix their own pockmarks likely helped keep the game more enjoyable and affordable for a lot of folks, and allowed what greens staff a course has to focus their time on other needed work.