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

[David in FL]

In my experience, new golfers aren't exposed to the rules of golf any more than preschool kids are exposed to the full rules of baseball as they first learn the very rudiments of the game in T-ball.  They learn to make a swing, to advance the ball, and eventually experience the joy of holing their putt.  The rules come much, much, later.

 

[Lihu]

Just now, David in FL said:

In my experience, new golfers aren't exposed to the rules of golf any more than preschool kids are exposed to the full rules of baseball as they first learn the very rudiments of the game in T-ball.  They learn to make a swing, to advance the ball, and eventually experience the joy of holing their putt.  The rules come much, much, later.

I keep getting alerted to this thread for some reason, but since I'm here. . .

That's pretty much how everyone I know learned the rules of golf. First, we break them, then someone tells us the rules after we broke them, then we try not breaking them until we know them better and automatically play by them.

[Phil McGleno]

5 minutes ago, natureboy said:

So I guess you are proving my point about the double standard regarding insulting language from moderators toward members.

Ha ha ah ah aha ha.-I am not a moderator.

I get to express my opinion, and I did not call you a name. THe actual moderators here have made the point many times that calling something you say dumb is not the same as calling you dumb. I am not calling you dumb.-I am saying you are being dumb right now.

Because you are-BEING dumb.

5 minutes ago, natureboy said:

They don't have to have consulted the rules prior to having formed a perception of them.

SO CHANGING THE RULES WOULD NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE THEN.

SEriously-Why should we care about the perception of people who have not even seen the rules??????

5 minutes ago, natureboy said:

The rules aren't golf. They have changed over time, sometimes significantly, but the essence of the game has remained the same. I'm not arguing for changing the essential difficulty of the game.

You completely missed the point.

And you are wrong-When you change the rules significantly you do change the essential difficulty of the game.

[natureboy]

12 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

Ha ha ah ah aha ha.-I am not a moderator.

Essentially the equivalent. And you used to be officially, didn't you? Do you not have the ability to delete or have posts deleted by others?

I do not doubt that I would have already be banned from the thread if had ever said the same to you.

12 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

And you are wrong-When you change the rules significantly you do change the essential difficulty of the game.

It depends on what rules you change and how much. Some changes may balance others.

Edited November 30, 2016 by natureboy

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Essentially the equivalent. Do you not have the ability to delete or have posts deleted by others?

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.

[natureboy]

6 minutes 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.

Pretty sure he used to be a moderator, and that he's deleted posts of mine in the past, but he may have just asked you or another moderator to do so.

I'm not sure. Based on the perceptions surveys, I'm quite sure it's more than zero. That's why I think it's worth asking that question directly first before settling into the comfortable, familiar position to not to change a thing about the rules. I'm for surveys that directly address the question. If you're correct about it having almost zero influence on people's perception of the game, then you'll only have more ammunition for not changing a thing about the rules, right?

It's hard to get an outside perspective when you're already an insider. Teaching people about golf doesn't necessarily bring you into contact with those who avoid golf out of a perception as they've made a significant commitment of time and cash to get better.

[iacas]

Just now, natureboy said:

Pretty sure he used to be a moderator, and that he's deleted posts of mine in the past, but he may have just asked you or another moderator to do so.

Nope. Never.

Just now, natureboy said:

I'm not sure.

Cool.

Just now, natureboy said:

Based on the perceptions surveys, I'm quite sure it's more than zero. That's why I think it's worth asking that question directly first before settling into the comfortable, familiar position to not to change a thing about the rules.

So you want to change the rules for people who don't play golf and who haven't read the rules, but have a perception - based again primarily on the rules they haven't read - that golf is stuffy?

That doesn't make sense.

[Lihu]

Just now, 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'll take a stab. Zero.

 

11 minutes ago, natureboy said:

It depends on what rules you change and how much. Some changes may balance others.

Unlikely to be a balance though. I think in general, simplification of rules will make it easier to play. Otherwise, they wouldn't do it.

Generally, most people get on the course the first time, and break all sorts of rules without knowing. They don't usually care until they get their fundamentals up to a certain level, at which point maybe they start wanting to actually score their rounds. As they go down in handicap, they learn more rules usually only a little bit at a time.

Going out on a limb, but I would say that more than half the people on the course don't actually play by the strictest rules of golf. In part, because they are likely not aware of them.

Those that kick the ball out of divots are still enjoying the game, hopefully not for money.

[sirsteveo55]

5 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Generally, most people get on the course the first time, and break all sorts of rules without knowing. They don't usually care until they get their fundamentals up to a certain level, at which point maybe they start wanting to actually score their rounds. As they go down in handicap, they learn more rules usually only a little bit at a time.

Going out on a limb, but I would say that more than half the people on the course don't actually play by the strictest rules of golf. In part, because they are likely not aware of them.

Those that kick the ball out of divots are still enjoying the game, hopefully not for money.

I completely agree with this. And no, I do no use my foot wedge to win money.

[natureboy]

7 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Unlikely to be a balance though. I think in general, simplification of rules will make it easier to play. Otherwise, they wouldn't do it.

Simpler application of the rules doesn't automatically equate with golf becoming less difficult. That's a logical fallacy.

Streamlining the structure, simplifying procedures, updating definitions, and increasing comprehensibility or the rules are not the same goals as making the game simpler/easier. Don't conflate them. I'm not supporting the latter.

That's why I'm personally against taking away stroke and distance for the tee shot / lost ball. But there are other potential streamlinings that may not affect score significantly...particularly on the definitions / procedural side.

Edited November 30, 2016 by natureboy

[Phil McGleno]

Just now, natureboy said:

Streamlining the structure, simplifying procedures, and updating definitions is not the same goal as making the game simpler/easier.

If you do not change the rules how are all the people who do not read the rules going to think the game is no longer stuffy or elitist because of the rules they did not read?

That's the logical fallacy here.

[natureboy]

7 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

If you do not change the rules how are all the people who do not read the rules going to think the game is no longer stuffy or elitist because of the rules they did not read?

That's the logical fallacy here.

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.

Edited November 30, 2016 by natureboy

[Lihu]

12 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Simpler application of the rules doesn't automatically equate with golf becoming less difficult. That's a logical fallacy.

Streamlining the structure, simplifying procedures, and updating definitions is not the same goal as making the game simpler/easier. Don't conflate them. I'm not supporting the latter.

That's why I'm personally against taking away stroke and distance for the tee shot / lost ball. But there are other potential streamlinings that may not affect score significantly...particularly on the definitions / procedural side.

My feeling is that the current rules of golf are not so bad that they need changing. Why would you want to learn two sets of rules? A newcomer might be more confused by two sets of rules rather than one set?

 

5 minutes ago, natureboy said:

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.

Playing by the strictest ROG on a $9 goat track is going to be a lot less stuffy and elitist than playing an expensive round at a Trump resort not by the rules.

[Phil McGleno]

4 minutes ago, natureboy said:

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

Yes.

4 minutes ago, natureboy said:

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.

You missed the point by a mile.-I am done now.

[Missouri Swede]

53 minutes ago, sirsteveo55 said:

Its like when my buddy tees up and in his setup his clubs hits the ball and everyone says 1 and laughs. No one cares because we're just out having fun and playing not trying to be an elitist or stuffy.

Just to clarify this point:  When your buddy bumps the ball off the tee while he's setting up, it isn't a stroke. So laughing or not, it doesn't count as "1," even during a practice swing, even in competition.

[natureboy]

9 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

Yes.

You missed the point by a mile.-I am done now.

Quote

If you do change the rules how are all the people who do not read the rules going to think the game is no longer stuffy or elitist because of the rules they did not read?

I think I got your point. I'm saying you don't have to be a rules reader to form an impression of the rules (however inaccurate) based on limited observations of them being applied on tv or in conversation by people who have some familiarity or interest in the game. There are socially formed opinions / a-priori perceptions. A well-received rules streamlining could filter out to those people the same way they formed the original perception.

I think the National Golf Foundation is smart in at least looking at and trying to understand outsider perceptions of the game. I play golf and don't agree that as a sport it's inherently stuffy and elitist. There are plenty of public/municipal courses that are affordable. Lots of working stiffs play golf. But I'm aware of that perception from the outside and may have even shared it a bit before trying it.

 

7 minutes ago, Missouri Swede said:

Just to clarify this point:  When your buddy bumps the ball off the tee while he's setting up, it isn't a stroke. So laughing or not, it doesn't count as "1," even during a practice swing, even in competition.

Or even touching it if it doesn't move, yes?

Edited November 30, 2016 by natureboy

[natureboy]

17 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Why would you want to learn two sets of rules? A newcomer might be more confused by two sets of rules rather than one set?

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.

[Missouri Swede]

6 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Or even touching it if it doesn't move, yes?

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