Do the Rules Significantly Contribute to Golf's Perception of Being Stuffy and Elitist?

[natureboy]

Just now, Missouri Swede said:

It doesn't matter if it moves or not.  On the tee, the ball isn't in play until he's made a stroke at it. Bumping it off the tee before you make a stroke on the teeing ground doesn't count, not even during a practice swing. No "that's one," and no penalty.  Tee it up again. 

https://www.usga.org/RulesFAQ/rules_answer.asp?FAQidx=69&Rule=18

I meant that even if off the tee you can touch the ball with your club at address so long as it only oscillates and does not move.

[Missouri Swede]

Just now, natureboy said:

I meant that even if off the tee you can touch the ball with your club at address so long as it only oscillates and does not move.

I see. Yeah, I was just trying to clarify the teeing ground issue.

[newtogolf]

38 minutes ago, natureboy said:

You meant if you 'do change the rules', yes?

How do I have a perception (likely inaccurate) of ice hockey's rules, which I've never read, and never played the game. I've seen it live and on tv. I've talked to people who've watched it and played it. I've listened to people who have informed and uninformed opinions about it in conversation and through broadcast, print, and online media.

90% of golf shown on television does not showcase the rules, this idea that people think the rules are complicated and not playing golf because of them is unfounded.  The average person watching golf, sees people tee off from a tee, hit an approach shot at or near the green and putt.  Sometimes Phil will put one into the stands and he hits it out of the stands.  I watch a lot of golf, compared to NFL football, the RoG play a minimal role on what is broadcast.  

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

No… He does not. Not sure where you got that idea.

I have one question for you that you can respond to, @natureboy: How many people do you think fail to take up golf each year primarily because they perceive the Rules (that they haven’t read) as elitist or stuffy?

Just a number.

I'm with @Lihu on this one.  I think this number is zero.  Nobody worries about the rules of any game or sport before they start playing it.  Those always come into play much later.

People who don't play golf don't play it because they don't care, don't like it, it's too hard, or takes too long ... but nobody doesn't play it because they can't roll it out of a divot or take a penalty when they hit it off the course.

---

Also agree with @newtogolf.  The rules rarely come into play anyway. For a beginner, the rules that matter couldn't possibly be any simpler.  Hit the ball, find it, hit it again, repeat until it goes in the hole.  That's it.

[newtogolf]

10 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I haven't mentioned two sets of rules. Did you just assume that I was?

One structuring approach might be to layer the current rules so the 'basic' primary commonly encountered ones were up front and the more uncommonly encountered scenarios pushed back or relegated to appendices with a short, basic summary up front. That doesn't create different rules, just reorganizes the structure.

As far as how many might come into the game and be exposed to the full rulebook. Here's some data we might infer a bit from. USGA membership by HCP. Look at the spike of 36 (max) handicappers, representing ~ 100,000 golfers. That number likely includes more than a few beginning golfers.

What is the goal of your threads here?  Do you want simpler rules overall or two sets of rules.  NFL football has different rules than Canadian football and both are different from college football.  

Golf has one set of rules (excluding local rules) regardless of where it's played, isn't that something we should want to protect given the majority of golfers don't know or play by the rules anyway?  

[natureboy]

1 minute ago, Golfingdad said:

I'm with @Lihu on this one.  I think this number is zero.  Nobody worries about the rules of any game or sport before they start playing it.  Those always come into play much later.

People who don't play golf don't play it because they don't care, don't like it, it's too hard, or takes too long ... but nobody doesn't play it because they can't roll it out of a divot or take a penalty when they hit it off the course.

What about the tens of thousands of max 36 HCP golfers who are members of the USGA? You don't think a lot of them are beginners?

I agree those other reasons are larger why people don't stick with the game. The rules might contribute somewhat (I never said significantly) to negative outsider perceptions of the game, which influences who actually gives it a try, which affects how many people get the bug and stick with it.

[Patch]

I vote "no". Golf rules don't contribute the eleteist, stuffy perception of golf. My reasoning is that I believe out of all the millions of golfers world wide, a very high percentage of them don't know all the rules anyway. Plus an even higher percentage did not even look at the rules before they hit their first ball. 

Myself, I don't consider the game of golf to be eleteists, and/or stuffy any longer. Maybe it was 30, 40 or 50 + years ago when golf didn't need the revenue that is does now. Except for a few country clubs, golf today, for the most  part, can't afford to be eleteist/stuffy any longer. 

[natureboy]

6 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

What is the goal of your threads here?  Do you want simpler rules overall or two sets of rules.  NFL football has different rules than Canadian football and both are different from college football.  

Golf has one set of rules (excluding local rules) regardless of where it's played, isn't that something we should want to protect given the majority of golfers don't know or play by the rules anyway?  

I didn't set up this thread. I'm only defending my point that the complexity of the rules (in structure / comprehensibility - not difficulty) might reinforce negative outside perceptions of the game.

Did you read the post you quoted? I explicitly told Lihu that I never said anything about two sets of rules. Streamlining and de-obfuscation are what I support.

I've also said that I would much more heavily weight the opinions about the rules among dedicated golfers, but also try to consider the perception of outsiders or more casual golfers about their complexity. Simple rules don't necessarily mean easier. I expect there were a lot of high scores in the era before the Unplayable Lie rule.

Edited November 30, 2016 by natureboy

[newtogolf]

5 minutes ago, natureboy said:

What about the tens of thousands of max 36 HCP golfers who are members of the USGA? You don't think a lot of them are beginners?

I agree those other reasons are larger why people don't stick with the game. The rules might contribute somewhat (I never said significantly) to negative outsider perceptions of the game, which influences who actually gives it a try, which affects how many people get the bug and stick with it.

What about the 36 HCP?  Most joined the USGA because someone told them to or they joined a private club that required they do.  They got a calendar, bag tag and manual, they flipped through the manual and tossed it in a drawer or on a bookcase.  

Just because you got the rule book doesn't mean you read it or cared what it said, most people initially learn the rules from those they play golf with.  As they improve or decide to enter tournaments they may become more interested in the rules but I would guess less than 25% (being generous here) of USGA members read the entire rule book.  

[Golfingdad]

3 minutes ago, natureboy said:

What about the tens of thousands of max 36 HCP golfers who are members of the USGA? You don't think a lot of them are beginners?

This doesn't make any sense, go back and read Eriks question again.

"How many people fail to take up golf each year because of the rules?"

If they're usga members then it's safe to say they've taken up golf.

[iacas]

13 minutes ago, natureboy said:

What about the tens of thousands of max 36 HCP golfers who are members of the USGA? You don't think a lot of them are beginners?

What about them? They've not only played golf, they've joined the USGA…

13 minutes ago, natureboy said:

The rules might contribute somewhat (I never said significantly) to negative outsider perceptions of the game, which influences who actually gives it a try, which affects how many people get the bug and stick with it.

I don't think it does. I too think the number is awfully close to zero.

And that's the fundamental disconnect here.

9 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I didn't set up this thread.

Effectively, you did. You kept veering off topic in the other thread, then sent a few of us the first post (the second now) as an unsolicited PM. I put it up for broader discussion. That's it. It's your post, and your thread.

28 minutes ago, natureboy said:

One structuring approach might be to layer the current rules so the 'basic' primary commonly encountered ones were up front and the more uncommonly encountered scenarios pushed back or relegated to appendices with a short, basic summary up front. That doesn't create different rules, just reorganizes the structure.

That's effectively what happens now. As golfers advance in the game, they learn more and more rules and specifics.

20 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

90% of golf shown on television does not showcase the rules, this idea that people think the rules are complicated and not playing golf because of them is unfounded. The average person watching golf, sees people tee off from a tee, hit an approach shot at or near the green and putt.  Sometimes Phil will put one into the stands and he hits it out of the stands. I watch a lot of golf, compared to NFL football, the RoG play a minimal role on what is broadcast.  

Yep.

Heck, in other sports, you're made aware of an umpire, referee, or official every five minutes. I don't remember the last time I saw a golf ruling covered.

[natureboy]

10 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

This doesn't make any sense, go back and read Eriks question again.

"How many people fail to take up golf each year because of the rules?"

If they're usga members then it's safe to say they've taken up golf.

His point was that he'd put a number of zero on the people who might encounter the rules directly (via the rulebook) as beginners. Just because they've joined the USGA doesn't mean they will stick with the game. Albeit most likely for the difficulty of the game and the time investment it requires.

I do think it's possible that first impression of the rules may add a bit to that frustration. I agree many of them would be likely to look at the rule book just as I did and then toss it aside as TMI for someone who just wants to start with / learn the basics and then see if they want to stick with it.

Edited November 30, 2016 by natureboy

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, natureboy said:

His point was that he'd put a number of zero on the people who might encounter the rules directly (via the rulebook) as beginners.

That's not correct.

Heck, one of the first things I do when I get into a new sport is to read the rules.

[natureboy]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

Effectively, you did. You kept veering off topic in the other thread, then sent a few of us the first post (the second now) as an unsolicited PM. I put it up for broader discussion. That's it. It's your post, and your thread.

I am not able to change the title as I requested you do. I did not add tags to it.

It's not my thread.

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

That's effectively what happens now. As golfers advance in the game, they learn more and more rules and specifics.

So why not structure the rules that way?

[iacas]

1 minute ago, natureboy said:

I am not able to change the title as I requested you do. I did not add tags to it.

It's not my thread.

Yes, it is. As you know, mods sometimes change the names of threads to accurately represent their topic. Plus, I did edit the thread title based on your suggestion.

2 minutes ago, natureboy said:

So why not structure the rules that way?

Why? You ask "why not?" and I'm asking "why?"

Why structure the rules that way when that approach works fine right now while still being organized in a way that makes sense to more advanced rules followers? Structuring the rules that way would lead to a lot of redundancy. It would lead to a lot of "remember that bit about water hazards?" Well, turns out that was the simpler version, so now here on this page we're going to learn the almost full version…"

The entire premise of your thread is critically flawed.

[natureboy]

8 minutes ago, iacas said:

That's not correct.

Heck, one of the first things I do when I get into a new sport is to read the rules.

That's my bad. Was thinking of another point made earlier. Thread was moving a bit fast.

Quote

I have one question for you that you can respond to, @natureboy: How many people do you think fail to take up golf each year primarily because they perceive the Rules (that they haven’t read) as elitist or stuffy?

As I said. Not sure. But I never said it was a primary reason as you tried to glom onto my point with the title that you won't change for 'my' thread.

I think the current perceived complexity of the ROG may reinforce negative outsider perceptions that lead to less people trying the sport. I'd be curious to see what an actual survey says about it.

Edited November 30, 2016 by natureboy

[newtogolf]

10 minutes ago, natureboy said:

His point was that he'd put a number of zero on the people who might encounter the rules directly (via the rulebook) as beginners. Just because they've joined the USGA doesn't mean they will stick with the game. Albeit most likely for the difficulty of the game and the time investment it requires. I do think it's possible that first impression of the rules may add a bit to that frustration. I agree many of them would be likely to look at the rule book just as I did and then toss it aside as TMI for someone who just wants to start with / learn the basics and then see if they want to stick with it.

As a beginner the last thing I cared about were the rules.  I was #1 concerned about learning how to hit a golf ball somewhat consistently.  Once I spent enough time on the range the next focus was etiquette, I didn't want to do something that was going to mess up my playing partners game.  I picked up after double par, if I struggled on a particular hole I just dropped the ball near my playing partner, the goal was to get through a round not follow the rules.  

Just in the course of playing golf with my buddies they would educate me on basic rules like OB, hitting a provisional, relief from golf cart, unplayable lies, etc but I went quite a while before I ever opened up the rule book to actually read it because I wasn't at a playing level where it was warranted.  

[iacas]

1 minute ago, newtogolf said:

As a beginner the last thing I cared about were the rules.  I was #1 concerned about learning how to hit a golf ball somewhat consistently.

But… once you got to this point, you were already beyond the point @natureboy is talking about.

He's talking about non-golfers not even giving golf a shot because they think the rules present golf as stuffy/elitist. Even though they haven't read the rules. They maybe just saw a rules thing on TV once… or something…?

Never mind that the part you quoted he got wrong.