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

[iacas]

40 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

Those of us who play by the rules believe it to be an important part of the game. How do we act when another does not, or criticizes the rules as too complicated or unfair? Reactions from more experienced players can easily be construed as a little condescending. Hence a defensive reaction that the game is stuffy.

That's not an issue with the rules: that's an issue of someone coming off poorly.

You could act all snotty about telling someone about offsides or the tuck rule or traveling or something, too. The issue with that is the person, not the rule.

And, I don't think the announcers, the once-in-a-blue-moon time they have to explain a rule, do so in a condescending way.

[JonMA1]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

That's not an issue with the rules: that's an issue of someone coming off poorly.

You could act all snotty about telling someone about offsides or the tuck rule or traveling or something, too. The issue with that is the person, not the rule.

Point taken.

[natureboy]

19 hours ago, iacas said:

the current title is very nearly what you suggested.

When you suggest a more appropriate title I'll change it.

No it isn't. I've already suggested a change. If you don't like that simply remove 'Significantly'. I never said or implied it.

7 hours ago, jamo said:

Part of me can understand the premise of this thread, but most of me recognizes that it's dumb to think that, say, stroke and distance would ever keep someone from taking up golf.

My point, despite how Erik has attempted to misconstrue it was that the form, tone, and way rules are discussed and communicated to the uninitiated may reinforce the perception of the game to outsiders. I was not saying the basic core rules themselves were the issue.

I also haven't argued that the difficulty of the game should be reduced to make it more inviting. Just that the immediate / first blush comprehensibility of the rules and how that perception may get communicated directly or indirectly to outsiders may reinforce the already existing 'stuffy/boring' perception they (mostly unfairly) hold about the game and the culture around it in general.

For some reason when a rule infraction comes up in other sports it seems to come across in a different way even if their underlying codes are as structured in a similar legalistic way.

My thought is really along the lines that attempts to streamline and reorganize might help in communicating the simplicity of the essence of the rules. Why not organize existing rules into sections in a similar way to how the Constitution has preamble, articles, and amendments (some grouped as the Bill of Rights) with the 'details' of federal statutes and code of federal regulations related to that 'core law' as sort of addendums. I also think that updating the wording to be as 'plain language' as possible could be a good move in how they are perceived by the 'outside world'.

1 hour ago, JonMA1 said:

I think the rules of golf may add to the perception of golf being boring and stuffy.

Those of us who play by the rules believe it to be an important part of the game. How do we act when another does not, or criticizes the rules as too complicated or unfair? Reactions from more experienced players can easily be construed as a little condescending. Hence a defensive reaction that the game is stuffy.

As far as the impact it has on prospective golfers, it's likely far below any of the more common reasons.

Thanks for being open minded.

I completely agree with your last sentence, and have said so repeatedly. Most of the other common reasons like golf is too hard, not enough time to learn/play, golf is expensive, family obligations, etc are not under the direct control of the rulesmakers. The rules however, small a contribution they may or may not make to that perception, are more readily modified by those who might want to 'grow the game'.

I don't think the rules as currently constituted or worded are the game. They have changed as the essence of the game has remained pretty much the same for a long time. I'm for making that essence stand forward as clearly as possible, while the accumulated statutes that may deal with less common scenarios take some kind of back seat in the order of presentation. I think it's possible to do this while making the language as plain as possible and reducing slightly redundant / overlapping procedures in a way that won't significantly affect average scores. I think these guys had a lot of good concepts: http://simplegolfrules.com/introduction/

I simply supported doing some professional market studies to actually assess in detail why golf has that 'stuffy/boring' reputation among people who haven't tried it and if the perception of the ROG make any contribution to that perception. It might really be about country clubs and dress codes. But as golf insiders I think there's potential for mis-perceiving how non-golfers see the sport so I'd put more stock in a real survey over personal anecdotes.

Edited December 1, 2016 by natureboy

[Golfingdad]

8 minutes ago, natureboy said:

My point, despite how Erik has attempted to misconstrue it was that the form, tone, and way rules are discussed and communicated to the uninitiated may reinforce the perception of the game to outsiders.

Now this I could somewhat understand ... however, Erik has addressed it above in his response to @JonMA1.  It's not the rules that are "stuffy," it's the person doing the communicating.  If outsiders allow that to affect their perception of the game rather than their perception of the person they're talking to, then that's their mistake.

[natureboy]

38 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

It's not the rules that are "stuffy," it's the person doing the communicating.  If outsiders allow that to affect their perception of the game rather than their perception of the person they're talking to, then that's their mistake.

Other sports rules may be as 'stuffy' in their official rule language (I suspect the ROG contain more antiquated lingo overall). But those rules are usually filtered to spectators by a ref who typically communicates the rule in some plain language fashion. Maybe golf could try a bit harder than other sports knowing they don't always have that built-in simplifier? Those who quote the rules by section / subsection on broadcasts don't help IMO.

If a complicated ruling was happening during a broadcast and the announcer could say something along the lines of "this is the 'burrow rule' Jim, part of the 'unusual circumstances' section so it's pretty rare that it comes up in the normal play of golf.", might that help make the communicator seem less stuffy and convey the rules in the proper light?

Chinese food is an amazing cuisine, but would it have caught on as well in America as it has (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Chinese_cuisine / also check out the move The Search for General Tso) if cooks hadn't adapted to the different American palate?

Edited December 1, 2016 by natureboy

[iacas]

31 minutes ago, natureboy said:

No it isn't. I've already suggested a change. If you don't like that simply remove 'Significantly'. I never said or implied it.

Where's your suggested title? I looked last night and didn't see it. None of your posts were edited by anyone but you. If I missed it, point it out. I swear I remember seeing it, but you may have (accidentally?) edited it out at one point.

Also, I will not remove the word "significantly." If this is something that's #27 on the list of things, then it doesn't even warrant a thread. If it's a significant factor, then it warrants a thread.

31 minutes ago, natureboy said:

My point, despite how Erik has attempted to misconstrue it was that the form, tone, and way rules are discussed and communicated to the uninitiated may reinforce the perception of the game to outsiders.

Then, as I already said and as @Golfingdad pointed out, the issue is with the way the rules are discussed.

Also, I don't think that happens very often, as a top reason why someone chooses not to play golf, partly because rules are almost never really discussed - certainly not around someone who doesn't play. It's rarely mentioned in TV broadcasts.

Plus, I call a bit of BS on your assertion that you've always been talking about how the rules are presented to people:

23 hours ago, natureboy said:

I do think the rules could be streamlined in structure and language so that would be one less element of the game that reinforces the 'boring and stuffy' perception held by many who don't have extended experience with the sport.

That says nothing about how the rules are discussed or communicated, but how the rules are actually written.

31 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Just that the immediate / first blush comprehensibility of the rules and how that perception may get communicated directly or indirectly to outsiders may reinforce the already existing 'stuffy/boring' perception they (mostly unfairly) hold about the game and the culture around it in general.

 I disagree, and again, will point out that it's not an issue with the rules, but the person who is doing the communicating.

31 minutes ago, natureboy said:

For some reason when a rule infraction comes up in other sports it seems to come across in a different way even if their underlying codes are as structured in a similar legalistic way.

I don't think many people share your view.

Plus, as has been pointed out, rules issues almost never come up - not compared to other sports - and when they do, they often have a rules expert there or the announcers just say what happened. I don't think I've heard Nick Faldo or anyone else being snobby when mentioning why a player is taking a drop or incurred a penalty stroke. Where else are these non-golfers or very new golfers encountering snobby golf rules people? And how is snobby people a rules issue?

31 minutes ago, natureboy said:

My thought is really along the lines that attempts to streamline and reorganize might help in communicating the simplicity of the essence of the rules.

I don't think so.

31 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Why not organize existing rules into sections in a similar way to how the Constitution has preamble, articles, and amendments (some grouped as the Bill of Rights) with the 'details' of federal statutes and code of federal regulations related to that 'core law' as sort of addendums.

Because the rulesmakers feel the rules are organized for efficiency. As I said before, if you introduce a simple rule, and later get into the details, that's a mess. The same rule may be in several different parts.

And you're not even addressing the issue: that someone talking about the rules seems - to you - as "snobby" or "elitist."

Beyond that, again, if this is reason #47 why people don't like the game, you can do more harm than good in "reorganizing" for the benefit of only a tiny number of people.

31 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Thanks for being open minded.

I'm open minded, too. You've just made a lousy case for yourself.

31 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I'm for making that essence stand forward as clearly as possible, while the accumulated statutes that may deal with less common scenarios take some kind of back seat in the order of presentation.

Here's where you get off the rails.

Here's where you talk about the Rules themselves as being the problem. Not with how they're communicated, but how they're written and organized.

Which is why your protests that we're misunderstanding you fall short.

Of the people who quit or are turned off to golf, how many of them even look at the rules book? What in the heck would re-organizing the order of the rules do to change that?

Virtually nobody and nothing.

31 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I think these guys had a lot of good concepts: http://simplegolfrules.com/introduction/

Then discuss them, directly, and specifically, in the thread we set up or that.

5 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Other sports rules may be as 'stuffy' in their official rule language (I suspect the ROG contain more antiquated lingo overall). But those rules are usually filtered to spectators by a ref who typically communicates the rule in some plain language fashion.

Really?

That's what you're going with?

"Holding, Defense #98. Ten yards and automatic first down." - or - "Cross checking, #71. Two minutes."

What part of those is "plain language" and friendlier than "Rory, well, he hit it in the water here, so he's either got to drop it within two clublengths or replay the shot, those are the only two options that really make sense here. He'll be hitting his fourth and has to work to save his bogey now."

5 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Maybe golf could try a bit harder than other sports knowing they don't always have that built-in simplifier? Those who quote the rules by section / subsection on broadcasts don't help IMO.

Again, what does changing the actual rules have to do with your opinion of how it's presented on TV? And again, how often do you even think this happens on TV? And again, why is someone not interested in golf watching golf on TV?

5 minutes ago, natureboy said:

If a complicated ruling was happening during a broadcast and the announcer could say something along the lines of "this is the 'burrow rule' Jim, part of the 'unusual circumstances' section so it's pretty rare that it comes up in the normal play of golf.", might that help make the communicator seem less stuffy and convey the rules in the proper light?

They do that.

Seriously, I don't know what coverage you're watching.

[newtogolf]

2 hours ago, natureboy said:

Other sports rules may be as 'stuffy' in their official rule language (I suspect the ROG contain more antiquated lingo overall). But those rules are usually filtered to spectators by a ref who typically communicates the rule in some plain language fashion.

Do you watch other professional sports like NFL Football or NBA Basketball?  Almost every game I watch the color commentator takes issues with how the rules are written and interpreted.   Most of the NFL rules are subjective, was it pass interference or was the defender going for the ball, or did their feet entangle by accident or was it intentional.  In the NBA there's always complaints about how fouls are called, whether they call the game tight or loose.  

In golf, it's not subjective, the ball is OB or not, the lie is unplayable or not.  Even in the case of a ball moving on the green there is an attempt to objectively determine the likelihood of the cause.  The RoG are written in plain english, the decisions are even more readable so I'm not sure how much plainer it can be and still be formalized sufficiently to qualify as rules.

2 hours ago, natureboy said:

If a complicated ruling was happening during a broadcast and the announcer could say something along the lines of "this is the 'burrow rule' Jim, part of the 'unusual circumstances' section so it's pretty rare that it comes up in the normal play of golf.", might that help make the communicator seem less stuffy and convey the rules in the proper light?

 

Miller, Faldo and the other commentators usually do a pretty good job of explaining a ruling but in order to fully understand some of the more involved rulings you may require a basic understanding of golf terms and rules.   Have you ever watched a football game with someone who never watched or played football, they don't know what pass interference is or how that differs from defensive holding.  Offsides in US football is completely different than other sports and let's not even get into why some penalties that occur during the point after TD attempt get assessed on the kickoff or what constitutes a legal formation.    

[natureboy]

23 hours ago, iacas said:

Where's your suggested title? I looked last night and didn't see it. None of your posts were edited by anyone but you. If I missed it, point it out. I swear I remember seeing it, but you may have (accidentally?) edited it out at one point.

Also, I will not remove the word "significantly." If this is something that's #27 on the list of things, then it doesn't even warrant a thread. If it's a significant factor, then it warrants a thread.

It was with the post, where I started with "Dude, change the title". It used to be one of the early posts, possibly right after your first post after #2. Maybe it got accidentally dropped when you shuffled in post#1 before post#2, which was the original OP.

Not the least surprised that you won't change the title to accurately reflect my actual opinion and what I've actually stated. AFIC it proves the point I've made that this is not 'my thread' as you have claimed.

Even if the perception of the rules affected outsider opinions by something insignificant like 10% without impacting existing golfers scores and HCPs, it might be worth doing for the ruling bodies, because they don't have a ton of influence on those other major factors why people don't try or stick with golf, including the perceptions of 'boring, stuffy, elite' that come up in the surveys.

21 hours ago, newtogolf said:

Do you watch other professional sports like NFL Football or NBA Basketball?  Almost every game I watch the color commentator takes issues with how the rules are written and interpreted.   Most of the NFL rules are subjective, was it pass interference or was the defender going for the ball, or did their feet entangle by accident or was it intentional.  In the NBA there's always complaints about how fouls are called, whether they call the game tight or loose.  

In golf, it's not subjective, the ball is OB or not, the lie is unplayable or not.  Even in the case of a ball moving on the green there is an attempt to objectively determine the likelihood of the cause.  The RoG are written in plain english, the decisions are even more readable so I'm not sure how much plainer it can be and still be formalized sufficiently to qualify as rules.

Miller, Faldo and the other commentators usually do a pretty good job of explaining a ruling but in order to fully understand some of the more involved rulings you may require a basic understanding of golf terms and rules.   Have you ever watched a football game with someone who never watched or played football, they don't know what pass interference is or how that differs from defensive holding.  Offsides in US football is completely different than other sports and let's not even get into why some penalties that occur during the point after TD attempt get assessed on the kickoff or what constitutes a legal formation.    

Yes I see those debate and discussions arising in other sports sometimes. My recollection is that they tend primarily be arguing the finer points of whether it was a 'good call' on a bang-bang type of play. Less about the intricacies and worthiness of the rules and procedures themselves. But I would agree my perception is one of an outsider, except with baseball. My perception is that golf seems to have a bit more of these 'unworthy rule' arguments than say, baseball (which I'm fairly familiar with as a spectator and having played as a kid).

I agree that most of the tv commentary about the ROG is pretty mundane, but sometimes a 'big exception' can blow up and distort outside perceptions & opinions disproportionately. The DJ controversy seems like kind of a case in point. Does it stand out in your memory vs. the many perfectly normal drops you saw in 2015? If you asked the average person who might follow sporting news (but didn't follow golf, or hadn't ever played it) their opinion of the ROG, would their awareness of that 'incident' simply as a news item color their perceptions? An analogy in baseball I can think of is George Brett's 'pine tar' incident. A rarely invoked rule that created a lot of controversy. If the ruling of the home run taken away in a World Series had stood, would it have affected people's long-term view of baseball and its rules?

I'm not sure the ROG are as plain in their lingo as they could be. Yes some special terminology and definitions will be needed in most games, but I think the 'top layer' / 'core rules' should have as little non-plain language as possible, with more 'arcane' constructions if needed for the rarer situations buried deeper.

---

Some interesting semi-relevant articles.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3818331/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21576485/

Edited December 2, 2016 by natureboy

[iacas]

54 minutes ago, natureboy said:

It was with the post, where I started with "Dude, change the title". It used to be one of the early posts, possibly right after your first post after #2. Maybe it got accidentally dropped when you shuffled in post#1 before post#2, which was the original OP.

If it was "accidentally dropped" it was by you. Moving posts from one thread to another doesn't "drop" anything.

You've got a bad record on this stuff. You think people are moderators that are not and never have been, you say things like this, etc.

I've asked you a few times now what title you want, and apparently you'd just rather bitch about it.

54 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Not the least surprised that you won't change the title to accurately reflect my actual opinion and what I've actually stated. AFIC it proves the point I've made that this is not 'my thread' as you have claimed.

It's your thread. You have the OP. Suggest a title. I've asked this of you a few times.

And no, I won't remove the word "significantly" because why should we care about an "insignificant" thing? The first definition of "insignificant" here is literally "too small or unimportant to be worth consideration." If people are failing to take up golf because of the rules or how people seem snobby when they talk about the rules, that's significant.

54 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Even if the perception of the rules affected outsider opinions by something insignificant like 10% without impacting existing golfers scores and HCPs, it might be worth doing for the ruling bodies, because they don't have a ton of influence on those other major factors why people don't try or stick with golf, including the perceptions of 'boring, stuffy, elite' that come up in the surveys.

10% is not insignificant.

If even 3% of people failed to play golf because of the rules, I'd support considering changing the rules.

You've yet to demonstrate anything that shows that the rules - or the way people first interact with the rules - is a significant factor in their choosing not to play or to quit.

54 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Less about the intricacies and worthiness of the rules and procedures themselves.

That's because you seemingly aren't active on other sports forums.

I'm on other sports forums. I see rules discussions about the intricacies and worthiness of the rules and procedures themselves all the time.

You're heavily involved in golf and so far as anyone can tell, not at all involved in other sports beyond casual spectatorship or something… Cool. You spectate baseball. Do you have nearly 3000 posts on a baseball forum somewhere?

54 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I agree that most of the tv commentary about the ROG is pretty mundane, but sometimes a 'big exception' can blow up and distort outside perceptions & opinions disproportionately.

Again:

• Rules discussions come up incredibly infrequently in golf coverage.
• You're saying now that "most" is mundane.
• Non-golfers and those who will quit because they perceive the rules (or the people talking about the rules) as "stuffy" aren't very likely to be watching golf coverage or paying much attention to the rule.

54 minutes ago, natureboy said:

The DJ controversy seems like kind of a case in point.

Gee, how'd I know that would come up…? And how does that rule - which I've already said made them look confused and incompetent about 100x more than it made them look "stuffy" or "elitist" - make them look stuffy/elitist?

54 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I'm not sure the ROG are as plain in their lingo as they could be. Yes some special terminology and definitions will be needed in most games, but I think the 'top layer' / 'core rules' should have as little non-plain language as possible, with more 'arcane' constructions if needed for the rarer situations buried deeper.

No. The language of the rules should be consistent. There are differences between things like "the green" and "a putting green" and "the ball" and "a ball" and things like that. Even the little words like "a" and "the" carry significant meaning and must remain consistent.

---

Spoiler

@natureboy, I've restricted you from posting until January 1, 2017. The reasons are numerous, but boiled down, (virtually) nobody enjoys participating in threads in which you're playing this role that you so willingly play. You're a "net negative." You're the only member I can say this about - no other members need worry that they're even sniffing similar treatment.

That you'd rather bitch about the thread title and make allegations about how we maybe deleted your suggestion (or something?) than just offer up a suggestion is illuminating.

We're here to enjoy discussing all manner of golf topics, and that doesn't happen when you're involved. I am not making this decision unilaterally; I consulted with all moderators and some Forum Leaders. Though some expressed disappointment, all agreed with this action.

Whatever chip you've got on your shoulder (that's simultaneously blinding you to seeing the bigger picture, if I can mix my metaphors or whatever you call them), please remove it by 2017 or we'll simply extend the restriction into perpetuity.

[Patch]

Just thinking about this, and I have no valid proof. What if the "rule of silence" of the game allows for the eleteist/stuffiness presumption of the game? Or, at least helps with it. 

Most other sports are full of noise during play. Fans yelling. Players, and coaches yelling out stuff. Yet, while playing golf rules say we are supposed to be very hush, hush during swings, and other parts of the game. 

What about the rule against unauthorized camera usage? Heaven forbid in golf if the "click" of a shutter causes a poor shot.That, or if a picture/video of a golfer is taken with out their permission. Most of the other sports don't seem to mind cameras. 

Most of the other sports don't  have a rule that will get you escorted off the playing property for telling a player he sucks......lol

Yes, what I wrote above only deals with the professional part of golf. Perhaps the professional golfers themselves add a negative flavor to the game, and this is what the amateur ranks see.  Also, what other sport has a rule  of importance based on etiquette?

Just thoughts. 

[Golfingdad]

40 minutes ago, Patch said:

Just thinking about this, and I have no valid proof. What if the "rule of silence" of the game allows for the eleteist/stuffiness presumption of the game? Or, at least helps with it. 

Most other sports are full of noise during play. Fans yelling. Players, and coaches yelling out stuff. Yet, while playing golf rules say we are supposed to be very hush, hush during swings, and other parts of the game. 

What about the rule against unauthorized camera usage? Heaven forbid in golf if the "click" of a shutter causes a poor shot.That, or if a picture/video of a golfer is taken with out their permission. Most of the other sports don't seem to mind cameras. 

Most of the other sports don't  have a rule that will get you escorted off the playing property for telling a player he sucks......lol

Yes, what I wrote above only deals with the professional part of golf. Perhaps the professional golfers themselves add a negative flavor to the game, and this is what the amateur ranks see.  Also, what other sport has a rule  of importance based on etiquette?

Just thoughts. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there isn't anything in the rules of golf about being quiet during swings nor is there anything in the rules about cameras.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there isn't anything in the rules of golf about being quiet during swings nor is there anything in the rules about cameras.

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!rule-14252

There's a section on Etiquette, for which serious breaches can result in penalties, but I agree that this is borderline/fringe type stuff. Other sports request silence or have the rule of not distracting other players. You can't do certain things to a guy receiving a punt, darts, pool, shooting, free throws in basketball (crowds can do almost anything, of course, but the players themselves cannot), etc.

Obviously at the Phoenix Open they yell and scream all throughout the tee shots on 16.

But generally, this isn't a "Rules of Golf" issue.

[Patch]

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there isn't anything in the rules of golf about being quiet during swings nor is there anything in the rules about cameras.

You are not wrong. The rules I mention are more of the "unwritten" rules of golf. If this topic is just for the USGA, and the R&A book of official rules, then my apologies.

Some folks seeing these unwritten rules of golf might percieve the game as a having eleteist, stuffy folks involved with it. This was my reasoning for adding those views to this thread. 

[Rainmaker]

No - I don't think they contribute to golf being stuffy and elitist.  I think they contribute to golf seeming complex and intimidating to learn . . not that it necessarily should.  

I just checked my big list of imaginary statistics and it says that over 85% of the rounds played at my local muni would be disqualified under tournament rules. 

Just like with backyard football - *every* rule does not need to be followed in order to play the game . . but for some reason people put more weight on golf's complex set of rules . . . even though probably 0% of casual golfers know the rules in their entirety.  Sure the rules are complex but you really only need a few basics to go out and play and have fun . .so if somebody thinks the rules are stuffy and elitist . .they should go to my local muni where the stuffiest thing you'll find are the breakfast tacos.  Get it?  Tacos? Stuffy?  I slay me.  

  

[Golfingdad]

2 hours ago, Patch said:

You are not wrong. The rules I mention are more of the "unwritten" rules of golf. If this topic is just for the USGA, and the R&A book of official rules, then my apologies.

Some folks seeing these unwritten rules of golf might percieve the game as a having eleteist, stuffy folks involved with it. This was my reasoning for adding those views to this thread. 

In your defense, the exact topic - what OP was objecting to - isn't entirely clear, so ... :)

One thing I think most agree on (cept OP) is that whatever the specific topic, it certainly isn't significant in any shape or form.

2 hours ago, iacas said:

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!rule-14252

There's a section on Etiquette, for which serious breaches can result in penalties, but I agree that this is borderline/fringe type stuff. Other sports request silence or have the rule of not distracting other players. You can't do certain things to a guy receiving a punt, darts, pool, shooting, free throws in basketball (crowds can do almost anything, of course, but the players themselves cannot), etc.

Obviously at the Phoenix Open they yell and scream all throughout the tee shots on 16.

But generally, this isn't a "Rules of Golf" issue.

Fair points.

[colin007]

Is this only to discuss the perceptions of non-golfers? If so then I can't imagine them having enough knowledge of the rules for them to affect their perception. 

However, among golfers who do have knowledge of the rules, I think the rules do contribute to the stuffy and elitist perception. I only have anecdotal evidence to support this, but among many golfers I know golf is perceived as being stuffy in part (significantly) due to the rules.

[Lihu]

2 hours ago, colin007 said:

Is this only to discuss the perceptions of non-golfers? If so then I can't imagine them having enough knowledge of the rules for them to affect their perception. 

However, among golfers who do have knowledge of the rules, I think the rules do contribute to the stuffy and elitist perception. I only have anecdotal evidence to support this, but among many golfers I know golf is perceived as being stuffy in part (significantly) due to the rules.

Which rules do they object to the most? It would be interesting to know the top 5 or 6 rules that make the sport of golf seem to be stuffy and elite+++ to them? As many other people suggested, it seems like the delivery of the said rules could have a big bearing on that perception as well?

In my experience, kicking the ball out of divots was high on the list of casual long time golfers. They basically play bogey golf, and are out there to enjoy themselves.

I actually tried playing a round while purposefully breaking a few rules, and found that it didn't really change my score by more than a couple strokes. Probably because I felt too guilty to hit the next shot as well as I could.

 

+++ I vote to create a new thread "5 Stuffiest Rules in Golf", followed up by "Golf's elitist Rules, and why we hate them so. . ."

[Fourputt]

Why is it that someone who is lobbying for simplification creates a thread whose primary topic becomes an exercise in obfuscation.  You want to somehow bring people into golf by simplifying the rules for people who have never seen the rules, don't care about the rules, and don't even know anything about the game itself aside from a few glimpses as they surf the channels.

Golf's "elite" reputation still derives from the era of the country club - private, posh, and exclusive.  People whose total knowledge of the game is garnered from television really know nothing beyond that.  All they have ever seen is the camera panning around the course at a Tour stop, or the azaleas at the Masters, and they think (assuming that they make any judgement at all) "Wow, what an elite game... not for me!" 

They have no clue about the realities of golf.  They don't see the blue collar guy playing at his local muni.  They don't see the office worker taking his golf vacation to Myrtle Beach, something he saved all year (or maybe several years) for.  They don't see the family group out for 9 holes at a par 3 course in the evening.  All of these are beyond their ken because they have never formed any interest in the game.  No friends or family play to give them a different perspective and help dispel the myth.

But none of that has one iota to do with the Rules of Golf.