USGA/R&A Re-Evaluating All Rules, Top to Bottom

[natureboy]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

This is about the Rules of Golf, not the Rules of Handicapping. They're different topics. I'm at a USGA Rules of Golf Workshop right now and we… are not discussing (nor will we) handicapping, ratings, etc.

That was my original question on the topic. Thanks for the answer.

[newtogolf]

17 hours ago, k-troop said:

I'm thinking about how equipment has evolved over the last 3 decades (weights/materials, balls, hybrids, anchored putters, etc.), and how that has changed the way we play, course design, or in some cases even make a stroke (in the case of long putters).  I could see them draft a couple of rules that clearly state the spirit of the game.  Where is the line between valid golf and unfair advantage with respect to equipment and/or stroke?

It seems the way they've approached this has been piecemeal and reactive to specific items of equipment or technologies.  A new approach that looks forward might help equipment manufacturers better know where their limits are.  

(I'll add that I haven't the first idea what the new rules should be, or even if this is really needed.  Just a perception.)

I consider technology part of the game, the question is are we referring to the spirit of the original game played by sheep herders or the spirit of the game today that depends on technology to make the game easier so more people will play it or at least keep those that play it from getting too discouraged and quitting.  

I think the big question with regards to equipment will be bifurcation.  Does the USGA and R&A put restrictions in for the equipment professionals use that won't apply to amateurs?  Tony Finau is averaging 317 yards per drive and hits 45% of his drives over 320 yards.  Right now 7 more golfers are averaging over 300 yards compared to last year if these younger and stronger players keep coming onto the Tour it's going to impact the courses that can be played at some point.  

According to Golf Digest the average recreational golfer averages between 195 - 205 yards.  The last thing they will want to see is equipment restrictions that lower that distance even more.  I doubt we'd see any new rules that put non-pro's at a greater disadvantage than they are today.  

The simplest solution may be to just restrict the golf ball the pro's use but that has serious implications for the golf ball manufacturers.  How many people will want to buy a Pro V1 that the pro's use if it goes 20 yards less than the non-pro ball?  

[Big Lex]

Right now, the rules stipulate only a maximum distance a ball can travel; there is no "minimum" distance it must travel. So it is within the rules to play with a limited flight ball....if one were available and you wanted to use it.

While I do not have any personal objection to the distance pros hit the ball today, I understand that there are people at the USGA, R&A, and others of power and influence in golf who DO object to the distances the ball is hit in the modern game.

I would like the USGA to be prepared for the possibility that this opinion wins out and it is decided that a "rolled back" ball must be played in, for instance, high level competitions.

Right now, it seems that many people, including prominent voices in the equipment companies, believe that if you roll the ball back, you must roll it back for EVERYONE in order to maintain the "one set of rules for all" aspect of golf. I'm not sure that's true. This is what I mean when I say I would like the USGA to be prepared....to have a system in place whereby we could have multiple ball standards under the one set of rules.

An example might be to, under the equipment rules, specify TWO overall distance standards. One being the "general" ODS, and a second, perhaps called the "competition ODS." The competition ODS would be shorter than the general ODS.

When running tournaments, the organizers would specify which standard they were using.

The handicap system would have to be modified to account for this. It should be relatively straightforward to do this. If the rollback is essentially a distance-only change, then there would simply need to be two sets of ratings for each course. It's possible that slope could remain the same, although I don't know enough about slope to say. But in either case, it would require that every course be separately evaluated for handicap purposes for both balls/ODS's.

The option of staging a major with a shorter ODS would essentially force ball manufacturers to design and engineer a ball that flew slightly shorter. I realize this is something that sounds simple but may in fact be very difficult. But I certainly think it's possible. And if the rules are set up with two ODS's, AND the handicap system was modified to accommodate, the ball makers could continue to make and sell the current balls, in addition to supplying the short balls as needed. And having the option of a shorter ball might create some interesting options for amateur and recreational golfers as well, to challenge themselves in new ways, etc. Perhaps some clubs' competition committees would consider using the shorter ball for certain tournaments, etc.

Yes, this would require pros, and maybe all of us, to learn more. How far would we hit the new ball? Does it putt differently, etc.? Nothing wrong with any of that. If it poses a new challenge for pros, that's fine. And of course it's not like there isn't a precedent of sorts regarding this anyway. The R&A used to have different ball rules (smaller), and pros up until I believe the late 1960s had to play the little ball when outside the US. They did just fine. It worked ok....yes, it posed some problems and that's why they changed, but it wasn't as though the world came crashing down. The equipment makers handled the issue with the two markets just fine.

I think in the end, the ball manufacturers would do better, not worse. They would probably sell more overall product, if there was a need for facilities to keep both balls on hand.

Again....I am NOT saying I think we NEED two ODS's right now. I'm just thinking we should be prepared if, as with the groove rules and the anchored stroke ban, someone succeeds in convincing the USGA that they must do something about distance.

Edited March 20, 2016 by Big Lex

[iacas]

The USGA and R&A are not going to bifurcate the Rules of Golf. It creates way, way too many problems and way too many issues. More than were mentioned here, never mind the fact that one of the core aspects of golf is that we can play the same game that they play. You can't face… a major league pitcher in your weekly softball league game,b ut you hit an 8-iron stiff using the same stuff as anyone else can use, on the same courses, etc.

Never mind the fact that, what, a player who is on the fringe has to do something like try to learn both balls? Kind of ridiculous.

The other thing I know almost for certain they definitely will not consider: divot holes as GUR.

They might consider…

• Dropping out of a bunker when you take an unplayable. Though unlikely. Maybe a free drop if the entire bunker is casual water is more likely?
• Caddies standing behind players when they've taken their stance.
• Who (like the caddie) can mark and/or pick up and/or replace the ball. Who can replace a ball that's been moved (a son moved a ball at the PGA at Kiawah and the father put it back, so then the pro had to touch the ball to make it "legal" - it's a goofy dance right now).
• The organization of the whole thing. Rules numbers could shift and change quite a bit. The total number may change.
• Placing instead of dropping all the time (that had some momentum a number of years ago, and may again resurface).

[newtogolf]

5 hours ago, iacas said:

The USGA and R&A are not going to bifurcate the Rules of Golf. It creates way, way too many problems and way too many issues. More than were mentioned here, never mind the fact that one of the core aspects of golf is that we can play the same game that they play. You can't face… a major league pitcher in your weekly softball league game,b ut you hit an 8-iron stiff using the same stuff as anyone else can use, on the same courses, etc.

Never mind the fact that, what, a player who is on the fringe has to do something like try to learn both balls? Kind of ridiculous.

The other thing I know almost for certain they definitely will not consider: divot holes as GUR.

They might consider…

• Dropping out of a bunker when you take an unplayable. Though unlikely. Maybe a free drop if the entire bunker is casual water is more likely?
• Caddies standing behind players when they've taken their stance.
• Who (like the caddie) can mark and/or pick up and/or replace the ball. Who can replace a ball that's been moved (a son moved a ball at the PGA at Kiawah and the father put it back, so then the pro had to touch the ball to make it "legal" - it's a goofy dance right now).
• The organization of the whole thing. Rules numbers could shift and change quite a bit. The total number may change.
• Placing instead of dropping all the time (that had some momentum a number of years ago, and may again resurface).

I agree, bifurcation doesn't make sense but imo it would be the only option the USGA and R&A would have if they decide to restrict technology beyond the current rules already in place.   

[Golf Grouch]

I recommend that all water hazards are treated as lateral water hazards.  I swear that over 90% of golfers don't know the difference to begin with!

[No Mulligans]

Is there a way to restrict technology so it affects the long hitters more than the average or short hitters.  For example, low compression balls only... would that mostly affect the long hitters?

Or some other way that would have little affect on say for example the 250 yard drive, maybe 5 yards less, but would knock down a 300 yard drive by 20 yards for instance.  The long hitter would still have an advantage just not as much.

Not sure that would be fair to the long hitting pros but it would be nice if there was something that didn't make the game harder for the high handicappers.

[natureboy]

2 hours ago, No Mulligans said:

Is there a way to restrict technology so it affects the long hitters more than the average or short hitters.  For example, low compression balls only... would that mostly affect the long hitters?

Or some other way that would have little affect on say for example the 250 yard drive, maybe 5 yards less, but would knock down a 300 yard drive by 20 yards for instance.  The long hitter would still have an advantage just not as much.

Not sure that would be fair to the long hitting pros but it would be nice if there was something that didn't make the game harder for the high handicappers.

IMO that would not be fair. That would be like an instant relative HCP increase for many lower HCP players and many not so low. Better players already have many built-in advantages under the HCP system, but not all long hitters are accurate or low HCPs. Take away their occasional long bombs in the fairway and they're screwed for scoring.

I think that the added distances have changed the game in a way that is increasing costs for 'top end' clubs that strive to be championship length. Maybe some clubs can carve a niche by catering to the non-elite golfer who doesn't hit far and keep up their profits in the process. I love working on my iron and scoring game on exec courses in the area. The best one seems to get a lot of business.

[iacas]

3 hours ago, Golf Grouch said:

I recommend that all water hazards are treated as lateral water hazards.  I swear that over 90% of golfers don't know the difference to begin with!

Okay, but think about that one for a second. Excluding drop zones, water hazards give you a few options:

• Stroke and distance.
• Drop anywhere on the line from the hole back to the point of entry (last crossed).

Laterals of course add "within two clublengths of where it last crossed (or the opposite side of the hazard, no closer to the hole).

If you think about it, "drop anywhere on the line" and "drop within two clublengths" is almost the same. So in a sense they ARE already almost the same.

Most water hazards (yellow) you can't drop on the opposite side of the hazard.

[Rulesman]

9 hours ago, Golf Grouch said:

I recommend that all water hazards are treated as lateral water hazards.  I swear that over 90% of golfers don't know the difference to begin with!

I'm not sure it would make much difference to understanding. Many players are not aware of or don't understand the 'opposite side' part anyway. In addition, finding a spot 2cl from the crossing point will rarely give any more advantage and walking right round a lake will simply slow play down.

[Fourputt]

8 hours ago, Rulesman said:

I'm not sure it would make much difference to understanding. Many players are not aware of or don't understand the 'opposite side' part anyway. In addition, finding a spot 2cl from the crossing point will rarely give any more advantage and walking right round a lake will simply slow play down.

Yeah.  I was told one time by a guy that it means he can go across to the green side of a water hazard, even though that put the ball 40 yards closer to the hole.  I asked if he knew the definition of the word "equidistant", and he said that "opposite margin" superseded equidistant because it came first in the sentence.  It wasn't a tournament, so I just turned away in amazement and left him with his fantasy.

[Big Lex]

18 hours ago, No Mulligans said:

Is there a way to restrict technology so it affects the long hitters more than the average or short hitters.  For example, low compression balls only... would that mostly affect the long hitters?

Or some other way that would have little affect on say for example the 250 yard drive, maybe 5 yards less, but would knock down a 300 yard drive by 20 yards for instance.  The long hitter would still have an advantage just not as much.

Not sure that would be fair to the long hitting pros but it would be nice if there was something that didn't make the game harder for the high handicappers.

It would be really interesting to see if they could do something like that. It would open up a whole new debate, though.

I still like my "A" and "B" ball idea. Well....in reality, I HATE the idea. I'm fine with the game now. I do not want the ball rolled back. I don't want further restrictions in clubs; I like where things are.

But look what the "Authorities" have given us in the last few years. The groove change. The anchored stroke ban. Both brought about because of traditionalist thinking....the idea that there is something someone is doing with equipment that is making the game easier than it should be or making the playing of it have the appearance that is not golf-like, in some people's opinion. I heard that Dick Rugge had asked some of the equipment companies to furnish the USGA with restricted flight balls for testing, or at least to investigate the issue and furnish them with materials regarding the possibility of doing so. My source was excellent, but it's been a while since he told me and I may have the details wrong. Safe to say, the USGA is very interested in the distance question. I think they are concerned that players are hitting the ball so far that many clubs and courses are obsolete with regard to elite level play.

So I think if they do decide to do something about this, it would be better if it didn't affect the huge majority of golfers.

Having the companies make a second ball that flies shorter isn't bifurcation of the rules per se. The rules stipulate upper limits on ball flight, not lower limits. So there need not be any rule change whatsoever for this to happen. There simply has to be a reason for the equipment companies to develop and produce the ball.

And this is exactly how golf was, for years. Balata balls were shorter than solid core balls, like Top Flites. Pros universally played balata, which was shorter. Most amateurs played surlyn covered balls....some wound inside, some solid. Anyway, there were multiple choices, and elite players chose the shortest balls. That all changed with the ProV1, which had all the spin properties of the old balata balls (essentially), combined with the distance properties of the Top Flite (essentially).

Practically, yes, it would lead to a bifurcated situation if they began making a shorter flight ball, and a tournament or a tour required that players all use the shorter ball. Players on the pro tours would probably not like playing the "long ball" at an open, unrestricted event, and then have to switch to the "short ball" at Colonial. So it's likely that they would vote to play only the short ball. And then maybe other segments of the game would similarly vote to adopt the short ball. So all golfers and tournament directors would have both options, but it would play out that we would end up with a game wherein experts played the B ball and everyone else played the A ball. Which is bifurcation.

But here's the thing: if the handicap system accounts for it, what's wrong with it? All the other rules are the same. And as long as people handicap themselves properly (and this would be possible to do), we can still play that hypothetical match with Jason Day by the same set of rules.  

 

Edited March 23, 2016 by Big Lex

[iacas]

This thread really isn't discussing the ODS or equipment in that sense. If you want to discuss bifurcation or distance or something, please start a new topic.

[natureboy]

5 hours ago, Big Lex said:

But here's the thing: if the handicap system accounts for it, what's wrong with it? All the other rules are the same. And as long as people handicap themselves properly (and this would be possible to do), we can still play that hypothetical match with Jason Day by the same set of rules.  

You don't even need to change the rules to have a shorter (or more spinny) ball. Just implement it as a condition of competition. The problem that creates is for the manufacturers who want tournament winners to say I just used 'X' ball. It's not as powerful to say 'I use "X" PGA tournament ball in competition and "X" regular ball when I'm playing under non-distance limited rules at my home course.

[Wansteadimp]

I'd like to see a change in the relief available from a wrong putting green.

Currently you only get relief for where the ball lies, not swing or stance. This can lead to a player standing on a green playing at a ball off the green, making a full swing and leaving nice swirly spike marks on the green which is obviously not ideal.

Just give relief for the stance as well.

[Big Lex]

On ‎3‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 7:01 PM, natureboy said:

You don't even need to change the rules to have a shorter (or more spinny) ball. Just implement it as a condition of competition. The problem that creates is for the manufacturers who want tournament winners to say I just used 'X' ball. It's not as powerful to say 'I use "X" PGA tournament ball in competition and "X" regular ball when I'm playing under non-distance limited rules at my home course.

At one time, we had exactly this situation. Professionals and skilled amateurs played balata, wound golf balls, and everyone else played surlyn covered balls, mostly solid core surlyn (although Titleist did make a wound Surlyn ball as well). The balatas were considerably shorter than surlyn balls. But pros played them because they liked the feel, and they had more spin on greenside shots and approach shots.

There was probably a 20 or so year interval where a tiny sliver of the golf world played a shorter, spinnier ball, and almost everyone else bought and played a longer flying surlyn ball. The ball makers were fine with it. I don't see why they would have a problem with tour pros playing a "ProV-1 C" and everyone else playing a Pro-V1. People have allegiance to brand, not just the actual product. The pros often play blade clubs, but the companies market game improvement clubs to most everyone else. Your average club golfer doesn't want to play the EXACT same clubs the pros play, they know they can't.

Look, it's probably true that they will never do any rule change which would amount to bifurcation. But I DO think the ruling bodies are considering rolling the ball back. I would hate that. I think before they do that, they should explore ways to have a shorter competition ball under the single set of rules rubrik.

While you are correct that it isn't necessary to change the handicap system, as long as everyone always plays the same ball (either the short/spinny or the long), I'm envisioning a situation where the ruling bodies made the situation better by codifying and sanctioning two ball standards, BOTH of which would be legal at the same time. A tournament, or a club, ANY entity, could decide at any point that they wanted a round or a tournament or whatever to be played with either the short or the long ball. Maybe some pro events would be with the shorter ball....events on shorter courses, maybe....and others would use the longer ball. It wouldn't be that much to ask the pros to adjust to both. As I mentioned in another post, years ago many pros did just this, because they had to be able to play both the US ball and the British little ball. 

 

 

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, Big Lex said:

There was probably a 20 or so year interval where a tiny sliver of the golf world played a shorter, spinnier ball, and almost everyone else bought and played a longer flying surlyn ball. The ball makers were fine with it. I don't see why they would have a problem with tour pros playing a "ProV-1 C" and everyone else playing a Pro-V1. People have allegiance to brand, not just the actual product. The pros often play blade clubs, but the companies market game improvement clubs to most everyone else. Your average club golfer doesn't want to play the EXACT same clubs the pros play, they know they can't.

I don't know that I agree. A lot of players played the Titleist Balata, or Professional, and now play the Pro V1(x).

I played it from when I could expect to shoot in the 80s every time I teed it up, and a great many of the players at the country club (don't get the wrong idea - initiation was about $5k, and yearly memberships about the same - this wasn't some high falutin' place) played the Tour ball as well.

Furthermore, it's not like the Tour Balata was substantially shorter. I could switch between the balls and lose, what, a few yards off the tee? So you're not making the same kind of comparison: a ball that's 25 yards shorter is a whole different beast than what we had in the days of the Titleist Tour Balata and the Titleist DT Wound.

9 minutes ago, Big Lex said:

But I DO think the ruling bodies are considering rolling the ball back.

I don't think they are. Distance has been pretty steady for a number of years now.

Year	PGA Tour Avg
----	------------
2015		289.7
2014		288.8
2013		287.2
2012		289.1
2011		290.9
2010		287.3
2009		287.3
2008		287.3
2007		288.6
2006		288.9
2005		288.4
2004		286.5
2003		285.9
2002		279.5
2001		278.8

9 minutes ago, Big Lex said:

It wouldn't be that much to ask the pros to adjust to both. As I mentioned in another post, years ago many pros did just this, because they had to be able to play both the US ball and the British little ball. 

It's kind of a lot to ask. They'd hate the idea. After all, to use your own example against you… look at what happened to the previous two-legal-balls standard… it went away.

[DrvFrShow]

40 minutes ago, Wansteadimp said:

I'd like to see a change in the relief available from a wrong putting green.

Currently you only get relief for where the ball lies, not swing or stance. This can lead to a player standing on a green playing at a ball off the green, making a full swing and leaving nice swirly spike marks on the green which is obviously not ideal.

Just give relief for the stance as well.

I agree.

Yes that's the way it's written, but I would always take relief for the stance to care for the course in the event that such a thing happens. Then again, this only matters in tournaments. Even playing with your friends and keeping your handicap common sense says you shouldn't stand on the green and mess it up like that. Especially since spike marks can't be repaired, and you could potentially make someone very upset if their ball lands with your swirly spike marks in between their ball and the hole.