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

[SG11118]

1 hour ago, Fourputt said:

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.  

Did you read the article that DaveP043 linked?  Tufts title is being diplomatic and asking the question "is golf getting soft?", but in reading the article, it seems clear that he is asking a rhetorical question as he goes on to answer his own question by giving examples of things that have changed about the game that he doesn't like, and even going so far as to ridicule people that are trying to change his game to make it more friendly to the masses or make it easier for the less skilled - and less challenging to all.  In this article, he has a definite opinion of what golf and it's rules should be - at least in comparison to the direction it is going in 1960.

[bkuehn1952]

15 hours ago, SG11118 said:

...but in reading the article, it seems clear that he is asking a rhetorical question as he goes on to answer his own question by giving examples of things that have changed about the game that he doesn't like, and even going so far as to ridicule people that are trying to change his game to make it more friendly to the masses or make it easier for the less skilled - and less challenging to all. 

Agreed.  He sounds like a lot of us when a suggestion is made to change some element of the Rules. 

[David in FL]

16 hours ago, SG11118 said:

Did you read the article that DaveP043 linked?  Tufts title is being diplomatic and asking the question "is golf getting soft?", but in reading the article, it seems clear that he is asking a rhetorical question as he goes on to answer his own question by giving examples of things that have changed about the game that he doesn't like, and even going so far as to ridicule people that are trying to change his game to make it more friendly to the masses or make it easier for the less skilled - and less challenging to all.  In this article, he has a definite opinion of what golf and it's rules should be - at least in comparison to the direction it is going in 1960.

Ridicule?  Not at all.  He simply, and unabashedly states that he believes that the challenge inherent in the game is what makes it attractive to most.  He believes that reducing that challenge will also reduce the overall enjoyment for many.  I agree.  You don't need to be good at golf to love the game.  Though in this day of video-game-instant-expertise, a lot of newer players think that they should be...

[DaveP043]

After reading some of the Journal articles that Tufts wrote at about the same time as the first publication of "The Principles....", it seems that he was concerned about the direction of the changes to the rules.  I'm wondering if his motivation for writing "The Principles...." was to guide future changes to the rules, to influence future USGA Rules officials to maintain the principles that he firmly believed should apply.  Outside of the Joseph Dey article from 1953 (http://gsrpdf.lib.msu.edu/ticpdf.py?file=/1950s/1953/530213.pdf), does anyone know of a previous attempt to explain the underlying basis of the rules?

[Fourputt]

2 hours ago, David in FL said:

Ridicule?  Not at all.  He simply, and unabashedly states that he believes that the challenge inherent in the game is what makes it attractive to most.  He believes that reducing that challenge will also reduce the overall enjoyment for many.  I agree.  You don't need to be good at golf to love the game.  Though in this day of video-game-instant-expertise, a lot of newer players think that they should be...

However, there needs to be some sort of balance between challenge and playability.  Tuft's may have not liked the way that the game was evolving during his time, but it was happening none the less, and the rules had to keep up with the changes to courses and equipment.  I wonder how he would have reacted 100 years earlier when a rule was changed in the interest of playability to address a condition which had never previously been a factor.  Would he have been as resistant then?  

The pure chance involved in being forced to putt with a clump of mud on the ball would actually reduce the skill involved in putting, and that is contrary to the basic premise that golf is a game which challenges the player's ability - it isn't supposed to just test his reliance on luck.  Luck should not be any more a part of the game than is necessary.  There will always be good and bad bounces, and they should even out over time.  There should never be a situation where the player is forced to take shot when the entire outcome is dictated by luck.

[turtleback]

20 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

The pure chance involved in being forced to putt with a clump of mud on the ball would actually reduce the skill involved in putting, and that is contrary to the basic premise that golf is a game which challenges the player's ability - it isn't supposed to just test his reliance on luck.  Luck should not be any more a part of the game than is necessary.  There will always be good and bad bounces, and they should even out over time.  There should never be a situation where the player is forced to take shot when the entire outcome is dictated by luck.

I disagree that it is pure chance.  Having to vary how you play your shot into a green because of conditions seems like part of the challenge  At least it would have seemed that way to Ouimet, Vardon and Ray back in 1913, a time when that was a significant element of course management.  Bringing the ball in high makes for more precision, so when it was wet, and landing balls picked up mud, they had to decide whether to go for more precision and risk the mud or play a lower shot that is less precise but has a much better chance of avoiding the mud.  

In a way the game was purer back then.  You took on the course and the conditions as they were.  You were expected to adjust for the conditions, not obviate them with rules relief.  Mud on your ball influences the flight on full shots because of "luck", too, even if it is less pronounced than when putting.  So is landing in a divot.  Sometimes we seem to care about eliminating luck and sometimes we don't.  

I guess I prefer the "man against nature" aspect of the game.

[DaveP043]

26 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

However, there needs to be some sort of balance between challenge and playability. 

Based on the articles that Tufts wrote, I think he viewed it as a balance between the Principles and making play easier.

29 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

 There should never be a situation where the player is forced to take shot when the entire outcome is dictated by luck.

For as long as I've been playing, I've been allowed to lift and clean a ball on the green, but not one in the fairway.  However, folks just a generation older than I am may remember a time when lifting a ball on the green was allowed in only a few circumstances, and cleaning it wasn't allowed at all.  I'd suggest that playing that mudball from the fairway relies just about as much on luck as a mudball on the green.  I'm not suggesting either rule be changed, but they're not all that dissimilar.  

And i didn't jump on @turtleback's idea, I was writing at the same time he was.  He just types faster.

[newtogolf]

15 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Based on the articles that Tufts wrote, I think he viewed it as a balance between the Principles and making play easier.

For as long as I've been playing, I've been allowed to lift and clean a ball on the green, but not one in the fairway.  However, folks just a generation older than I am may remember a time when lifting a ball on the green was allowed in only a few circumstances, and cleaning it wasn't allowed at all.  I'd suggest that playing that mudball from the fairway relies just about as much on luck as a mudball on the green.  I'm not suggesting either rule be changed, but they're not all that dissimilar.  

And i didn't jump on @turtleback's idea, I was writing at the same time he was.  He just types faster.

I agree, a ball with mud on it does not fly consistently from the fairway any more than a putted ball rolls consistently with mud on it.  

[iacas]

My two answers below speak to the practicality (in my opinion), not to the Principles. I'm not making these points based on whether the rules should exist because of their adherence to or departure from the Principles, just in how practical it is to play golf under the alternative.

2 hours ago, turtleback said:

I disagree that it is pure chance.  Having to vary how you play your shot into a green because of conditions seems like part of the challenge  At least it would have seemed that way to Ouimet, Vardon and Ray back in 1913, a time when that was a significant element of course management.  Bringing the ball in high makes for more precision, so when it was wet, and landing balls picked up mud, they had to decide whether to go for more precision and risk the mud or play a lower shot that is less precise but has a much better chance of avoiding the mud.  

In a way the game was purer back then.  You took on the course and the conditions as they were.  You were expected to adjust for the conditions, not obviate them with rules relief.  Mud on your ball influences the flight on full shots because of "luck", too, even if it is less pronounced than when putting.  So is landing in a divot.  Sometimes we seem to care about eliminating luck and sometimes we don't.  

I guess I prefer the "man against nature" aspect of the game.

I agree it's not pure chance, but it is closer to pure chance than not, and the game of golf itself has evolved to require the "high shot" more often, with run-up chances blocked, or pins set just over hazards, particularly here in the U.S. Even the time of day you play can influence whether you get more or less mud balls, and when virtually every player is going to be putting once or twice per hole… these no longer become rare events that don't affect the outcome very much.

On true links courses where the game began, you don't have to worry about mud balls very much because the soil isn't made of much mud.

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

I agree, a ball with mud on it does not fly consistently from the fairway any more than a putted ball rolls consistently with mud on it.  

Generally speaking, fairway mudballs are:

• easier to manage (the mud is rarely directly on the back of the ball).
• much rarer, given the extra grass between the ball and the "mud" beneath.

I often have mud on the ball on the green. I rarely have it on the course, and when I do, it's not largely going to affect the next shot: it comes off when I strike it with my 7-iron (or whatever).

[natureboy]

5 hours ago, David in FL said:

Ridicule?  Not at all.  He simply, and unabashedly states that he believes that the challenge inherent in the game is what makes it attractive to most.  He believes that reducing that challenge will also reduce the overall enjoyment for many.  I agree.  You don't need to be good at golf to love the game.  Though in this day of video-game-instant-expertise, a lot of newer players think that they should be...

I definitely read much of that spirit in the article, but I don't think it's the only message / tone.

His attitude about fixing ball marks strikes me as extremely traditionalist and while not ridiculing, comes off as a bit dismissive. He's a little oblivious to why it would be a need. Maybe he had no experience with courses that had high volumes of play (inexpensive) or lacked an army of greenskeepers to remove the offending remarks? He clearly did not have the knowledge we have now that immediate repair by the golfer increases the chances of keeping the surface of the turf alive.

So the effective result of his perspective on fixing ball marks was in essence that if your course didn't have the resources to hire enough greens keepers to keep up with the amount of play the prohibition against players fixing ballmarks would mean the richer club would maintain an edge in superior and more playable greens.

The desire for the rule change on ball marks likely instigated by people who played municipal, or small semi-private courses who wanted to be able to play under the rules, but still keep their 'rinky-dink', affordable course as playable as possible.

21 hours ago, SG11118 said:

Did you read the article that DaveP043 linked?  Tufts title is being diplomatic and asking the question "is golf getting soft?", but in reading the article, it seems clear that he is asking a rhetorical question as he goes on to answer his own question by giving examples of things that have changed about the game that he doesn't like, and even going so far as to ridicule people that are trying to change his game to make it more friendly to the masses or make it easier for the less skilled - and less challenging to all.  In this article, he has a definite opinion of what golf and it's rules should be - at least in comparison to the direction it is going in 1960.

See above. I agree there is a general rhetorical question tone conveyed as to what he thinks golf and its rules should be. I didn't quite read the ridicule. There's also hint of political undertone tangent to it that's likely OT.

40 minutes ago, iacas said:

On true links courses where the game began, you don't have to worry about mud balls very much because the soil isn't made of much mud.

I was going to make the same point. Mud balls were probably relatively rare in the sandhills too.

The issue arose due to the growing popularity of the game in the U.S. which likely has a higher proportion of courses with more poorly drained soils.

40 minutes ago, iacas said:

Generally speaking, fairway mudballs are:

• easier to manage (the mud is rarely directly on the back of the ball).
• much rarer, given the extra grass between the ball and the "mud" beneath.

I often have mud on the ball on the green. I rarely have it on the course,

Isn't it more likely due to average landing angle with lower lofted clubs off the tee than the extra grass (though that is probably part of it)? Seems that typically being elevated with an extra sand base that in wettish conditions, many fairways are prone to get slightly soggier.

 

Edited October 26, 2016 by natureboy

[iacas]

42 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Isn't it more likely due to average landing angle with lower lofted clubs off the tee than the extra grass (though that is probably part of it)? Seems that typically being elevated with an extra sand base that in wettish conditions, many fairways are prone to get slightly soggier.

Not really. Landing angles don't span a huge range. From driver to PW it's under 15° IIRC. Given peak heights, the vertical component of speed is going to be about the same, and longer clubs will tend to be higher in the horizontal component.

P.S. Here's data for the PGA Tour. For most better players their landing angle with the driver is a bit higher. Also, PGA Tour players are gradually increasing the launch, peak height, and thus landing angle of their drivers over the past few years too.

And Kevin, before you latch onto this and run with it for 30 posts this topic is not about what causes mudballs (mud), the likelihood of a footstep causing a mudball, the difference in the mudballs Wattell and Johnson got, the surface density of grass on a poorly maintained fairway versus a plush green, or anything like that. We've just about exhausted the need to talk about mudballs in the context of this topic.

[Fourputt]

4 hours ago, turtleback said:

I disagree that it is pure chance.  Having to vary how you play your shot into a green because of conditions seems like part of the challenge  At least it would have seemed that way to Ouimet, Vardon and Ray back in 1913, a time when that was a significant element of course management.  Bringing the ball in high makes for more precision, so when it was wet, and landing balls picked up mud, they had to decide whether to go for more precision and risk the mud or play a lower shot that is less precise but has a much better chance of avoiding the mud.  

In a way the game was purer back then.  You took on the course and the conditions as they were.  You were expected to adjust for the conditions, not obviate them with rules relief.  Mud on your ball influences the flight on full shots because of "luck", too, even if it is less pronounced than when putting.  So is landing in a divot.  Sometimes we seem to care about eliminating luck and sometimes we don't.  

I guess I prefer the "man against nature" aspect of the game.

 There is no way to ensure that you don't end up with mud on your ball under the conditions of today's well irrigated golf courses.  If you can look ahead and guarantee that whatever landing point you aim at is guaranteed to be dry, then you need to get a crystal ball and go into the psychic business.  I get mud more often from my drives than I do from approach shots, and I get chunks stuck on the ball more often when I hit a high approach and land it on the green than I do if I miss the green.

3 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

Based on the articles that Tufts wrote, I think he viewed it as a balance between the Principles and making play easier.

For as long as I've been playing, I've been allowed to lift and clean a ball on the green, but not one in the fairway.  However, folks just a generation older than I am may remember a time when lifting a ball on the green was allowed in only a few circumstances, and cleaning it wasn't allowed at all.  I'd suggest that playing that mudball from the fairway relies just about as much on luck as a mudball on the green.  I'm not suggesting either rule be changed, but they're not all that dissimilar.  

And i didn't jump on @turtleback's idea, I was writing at the same time he was.  He just types faster.

 I dispute that playing an approach shot has as great an effect with a mudball than putting with one.  Like Erik said, the impact of whatever club I use knocks most of the mud off.  

I really believe as I said earlier, that Tufts was a traditionalist, and from what he has written, he was not that happy about the direction in which the game as a whole was going.  It was that direction that caused the need for the ball cleaning rule to be more liberal.  Arnie was leading his army and the public was just beginning to embrace the game in numbers never before seen.  The old rules worked on slow greens with no more than a couple dozen players crossing them on any given day.  Not so well on the faster greens that were even then approaching 8-9 on the stimp and enduring the traffic of a couple hundred players per day.

[turtleback]

5 hours ago, iacas said:

 

On true links courses where the game began, you don't have to worry about mud balls very much because the soil isn't made of much mud.

 

True but apparently they DID have "watter, or any wattery filth" on the course which was probably about as random as mud balls, and while they allowed relief it was at a cost of a stroke.

 

3 hours ago, Fourputt said:

 There is no way to ensure that you don't end up with mud on your ball under the conditions of today's well irrigated golf courses.  If you can look ahead and guarantee that whatever landing point you aim at is guaranteed to be dry, then you need to get a crystal ball and go into the psychic business.  I get mud more often from my drives than I do from approach shots, and I get chunks stuck on the ball more often when I hit a high approach and land it on the green than I do if I miss the green.

 I dispute that playing an approach shot has as great an effect with a mudball than putting with one.  Like Erik said, the impact of whatever club I use knocks most of the mud off.  

I really believe as I said earlier, that Tufts was a traditionalist, and from what he has written, he was not that happy about the direction in which the game as a whole was going.  It was that direction that caused the need for the ball cleaning rule to be more liberal.  Arnie was leading his army and the public was just beginning to embrace the game in numbers never before seen.  The old rules worked on slow greens with no more than a couple dozen players crossing them on any given day.  Not so well on the faster greens that were even then approaching 8-9 on the stimp and enduring the traffic of a couple hundred players per day.

Well I think the answer to mud balls in the fairway should be the same as the answer to mud balls on the green - change your flight trajectory so you don't get them, if you are able.  And if you are not able to do that then live with the deficiencies of your (rhetorical you, not you personally) game..

I have always looked at golf as a game that, in its essence, is about overcoming.  There is a difference between not being ABLE to play a shot (e.g., because your ball is in a water hazard) and having to play a shot in less than ideal circumstances.  And I don't particularly like letting players off the hook in those latter cases because of some notion of fairness.  Golf is not supposed to be fair.  It is supposed to be golf.  It is supposed to be equitable.  So long as every player gets to tee off with a clean ball that doesn't have mud on it equity has been preserved.  What happens after, on the hole, is happenstance and may make the player's position better of worse.  But equity is not involved or compromised.

[iacas]

47 minutes ago, turtleback said:

True but apparently they DID have "watter, or any wattery filth" on the course which was probably about as random as mud balls, and while they allowed relief it was at a cost of a stroke.

I take that as water hazards. It would also include casual water, but since they played match play back then, almost exclusively so far as I know, those types of conditions were the same for your opponents.

47 minutes ago, turtleback said:

Well I think the answer to mud balls in the fairway should be the same as the answer to mud balls on the green - change your flight trajectory so you don't get them, if you are able.  And if you are not able to do that then live with the deficiencies of your (rhetorical you, not you personally) game.

You can hit a driver really low (giving up tens of yards), and still get mudballs. That's not a practical response.

47 minutes ago, turtleback said:

I have always looked at golf as a game that, in its essence, is about overcoming.  There is a difference between not being ABLE to play a shot (e.g., because your ball is in a water hazard) and having to play a shot in less than ideal circumstances.  And I don't particularly like letting players off the hook in those latter cases because of some notion of fairness.  Golf is not supposed to be fair.  It is supposed to be golf.  It is supposed to be equitable.  So long as every player gets to tee off with a clean ball that doesn't have mud on it equity has been preserved.  What happens after, on the hole, is happenstance and may make the player's position better of worse.  But equity is not involved or compromised.

To a point.

If a PGA Tour course is going to provide a bunch of mudballs because of the conditions at the time, they institute Lift, Clean, and Place because the situation becomes too much about luck. When a competition becomes "about luck" beyond a certain level, the competition itself is compromised and skill matters less than it should.

There's no relief for mudballs in the fairway (unless LCP is in place). There is for mudballs on the green… by the simple rule of lifting, cleaning, and placing.

Perhaps because the rules guys thought that having to play a mud ball on the green where it can really affect the shot is past that line where it affects play/skill too much.

[Rulesman]

5 hours ago, iacas said:

There's no relief for mudballs in the fairway (unless LCP is in place). There is for mudballs on the green… by the simple rule of lifting, cleaning, and placing..

Balls lifted from the green must be REplaced.

There is a perfectly adequate but under used local rule for muddy balls TTG, described as Cleaning Ball. This involves REplacing the ball and is constrained to simply cleaning off the mud

Whereas PL/LCP is designed primarily for poor grass conditions and course protection, CB/LCR is for cleaning only. If mud on the ball is the only problem LCP gives the player a bonus (particularly when 1 cl is allowed).

IMO LCP is overused when LCR should be the norm.

 

[SG11118]

23 hours ago, David in FL said:

Ridicule?  Not at all.  He simply, and unabashedly states that he believes that the challenge inherent in the game is what makes it attractive to most.  He believes that reducing that challenge will also reduce the overall enjoyment for many.  I agree.  You don't need to be good at golf to love the game.  Though in this day of video-game-instant-expertise, a lot of newer players think that they should be...

Tufts wrote: "The difficulty is that those who advocate for easier rules, do not have either the skill or the fortitude to face the conditions which may occur under the present set of rules.  Their solution is to make the game easier"

This to me has at least an undertone of - hey you guys aren't good enough golfers, so you need to change the rules to try and compete - that makes you a bunch of softies. 

Maybe ridicule isn't the best word.  He's definitely trying to deflate these people.  It doesn't really matter as it is off topic to anything relevant in the conversation.

17 hours ago, natureboy said:

His attitude about fixing ball marks strikes me as extremely traditionalist and while not ridiculing, comes off as a bit dismissive. He's a little oblivious to why it would be a need. Maybe he had no experience with courses that had high volumes of play (inexpensive) or lacked an army of greenskeepers to remove the offending remarks? He clearly did not have the knowledge we have now that immediate repair by the golfer increases the chances of keeping the surface of the turf alive.

So the effective result of his perspective on fixing ball marks was in essence that if your course didn't have the resources to hire enough greens keepers to keep up with the amount of play the prohibition against players fixing ballmarks would mean the richer club would maintain an edge in superior and more playable greens.

The desire for the rule change on ball marks likely instigated by people who played municipal, or small semi-private courses who wanted to be able to play under the rules, but still keep their 'rinky-dink', affordable course as playable as possible.

Devils advocate - I believe golfers were still supposed to fix their ball marks as long as it wasn't in their line of play?  Theoretically, if everyone does what they are supposed to, there shouldn't be any un-fixed ball marks on the green.  It may have been beyond his comprehension that people would play golf and not take the responsibility to care for the course, so he didn't view it as an issue worthy of breaking one of the two fundamental principle of golf to deal with.

[DaveP043]

In one way, I think the recent discussion over cleaning of balls, and repairing ball marks seems off-topic.  However, I think this is exactly the type of discussion that Mr. Tufts was hoping to influence by writing and publishing "The Principles.....".  I'm only guessing here, but I think that the debates among the USGA and R&A rules committees in which Mr Tufts participated may have seemed to lack a focus on broad principles.  I'm guessing that they seemed, to Mr. Tufts, to be looking at each individual topic as an isolated issue, without a broader context.  In writing "The Principles...", Mr. Tufts gave all of us, but especially the framers of the rules, a broad context to help us understand how the rules got to the current point, and to help form a consistent basis for future changes.  

[natureboy]

4 hours ago, SG11118 said:

He's definitely trying to deflate these people.

 

Spoiler

Or appeal to their egos? I definitely read a tone of 'They should face the test squarely like a man and pull themselves up by their bootstraps'. Kind of like he did when he inherited his money .

 

4 hours ago, SG11118 said:

Devils advocate - I believe golfers were still supposed to fix their ball marks as long as it wasn't in their line of play?  Theoretically, if everyone does what they are supposed to, there shouldn't be any un-fixed ball marks on the green.  It may have been beyond his comprehension that people would play golf and not take the responsibility to care for the course, so he didn't view it as an issue worthy of breaking one of the two fundamental principle of golf to deal with.

 

Spoiler

 

Here's his text:

Quote

By way of example, in 1960 the repair of ball marks on the green became legal. This was a change strongly advocated by the 'friends of golf' and time may prove it to be an improvement. However, this new Rule makes a greenkeeper of each golfer and for the first time there has been a breach in the principle that the golfer must play the course as he finds it. At least to a limited extent, the course may now be adjusted to suit the convenience of the golfer.

He could be wrong on the details of the prior rule and change, but it sure sounds like he didn't used to repair ball marks on the green.

Here's the wording from 1960 under Rule 35 - the putting green:

Quote

c. Repair of Ball Marks. 
The player may repair damage to the putting green caused by the impact of a ball but he may not step on the damaged area. The ball may be lifted to permit repair and shall be replaced on the spot from which it was lifted. 
If a ball be moved during such repair, it shall be replaced, without penalty.