disco111

I'm not arguing, I'm attempting to present a position, that by your own words (complexity and size) which to me reinforces the overall structure of the debate towards those of us that feel there's to many rules. Now as you pointed out, specific rules can be argued, only because they were open to an interpretation of the rule. I've listed several on other posts. Now I can fully understand redefining a current rule, to make it more fully understandable, which was done with the Tiger's loose impediment boulder farce. That was a perfect example of a rule being open to interpretation. How in the world that USGA or Tour official allowed that to transpire is beyond me and that's one of the things that can be accomplished with a rules reduction. Trim the fat away and get to the meat of a ruling, no individual interpretations and in doing so the rule becomes black and white as I feel it should be. No referencing rule 10 subsection 2A sub-paragraph C and if that does not reflect the proper procedure, proceed to rule 21 section 12 sub section 5 sub paragraph 4 or consult local rules committee. This is the overall essence of the complaint of to many rules.

You keep extolling the same phraseology. As stated before, it's a moot point because it solves nothing. It's a challenge in name only, with no quantifying results emanating from the endeavor. But, and this is presumptuous at best, if the challenge was met, then in fact you would have to change your position, but then again, if the ruling bodies didn't accept it, then it's back to where we are presently and you would not have to agree that your position was changed, so it's a no win either way. That's one tough course you play......... In truth, it's doubtful that anyone would play or want to play such a course and I realize that your attempting to make a point, but perhaps just a slight overkill if you will. As has been stated before, 95% of us are playing everyday under 7 to 8 of the rules in question and that most likely includes the pros. I can't speak for you, but in all my years of playing, the vast majority of rules contained in the rule book never came into play and I'd venture to say that most people on here can attest to the same thing. I think we've all seen local rules, that have taken precedence over the rule book, due to outstanding conditions and these are done with a common sense overview and the rule book didn't cover it. I realize that sounds somewhat contradictory to my assessment of the rules in general, but it's strikes at the heart of the discussion. Common sense, should trump the rhetoric of committee members, who's sole positioning is to create an ever increasing assemblage of rules which often interchange freely with reference to other rules. So rule 14 section A, subdivision 3, reflects upon rule 18 section B subsection 1A paragraph 4 (just an example) and you can't tell me that you haven't seen something like this. Lets just accept the fact, that no new rule book will be forthcoming and there will be those that agree and those that dis-agree on the subject. Since none of us, to my knowledge, play the game for a living, our in-depth knowledge of all the rules is not really required. I for one, am content to be one of the 95%, playing under the 7 or 8 basic rules that have served so well for over 50 years. Now if you invite me to play your course, then I'll buy a rule book and hope my caddie is also a lawyer moonlighting...............

Why!, it's a moot pont. You won't change your position and neither will the USGA or R&A.; Besides,95% of us already play with the 7 or 8 basic rules, that wadesworld eluded to and he's in your camp. Since he's the author of this statement, I'm sure he would be best to stipulate those rules and then both our positions will be achieved and you can send the $500 to him.

Even the pro's don't know all the rules and it's their livelihood. They even have a rules person in attendance, to interpret and clarify during the round, so where does that leave the rest of us. As wadesworld stated, 95% of play is governed by 7 or 8 basic rules and he's one of your counterparts that feels the rules are just fine as they are. Kind of a contradiction of sorts isn't it. As I said prior, even if one of us offered up a set of rules, here on this forum, it wouldn't make a difference. You apparently missed that part of my post. Now referring back to the pro's again, even they campaigned years ago to have some rulings changed and it was to no avail. They are the pinnacle of the sport and even they thought some things were wrong. Case in point, when Ray Floyd was the players rep, the OB stroke and distance was challenged, under the aspect that it was double indemnity. How about the interpretations of rulings that got folks DQ'd. Example, Craig Stadler kneeling on a towel to hit from under a tree - ruling he improved his stance, but you can improve your stance in a bunker and not be penalized. If he put on his rain pants it would have served the same purpose but no DQ. Now as for ("accomplish that simplification without creating a game which is no longer golf"), it was called golf when it was only the original 13 rules and again, to restate wadesworld, 95% of play is governed by 7 or 8 basic rules.

By your own words, "complexity and obscure" are the key elements of the offering "are there to many rules in golf". Now I've sat and watched the responses to this question and even though somebody decided to keep score, at last count (15 to 18) this is not a runaway posturing for the rules are fine as they are. To answer Wadess assessment, yes the rules committee was and has been rife with lawyers and as I said in the opening post, the party of the first etc, etc. Now even if one of us here, took the time to forward a set of rules, for those that feel what we have is just fine, what would it accomplish? We would still be in a discussion, albeit a new one, dealing with the newly offered rules and the forthcoming plethora of I disagree and yet another vote and chart would appear and the circle would start anew. I honestly don't think that the USGA is monitoring this forum, so as the song goes, "nothing from nothing leaves nothing"

I've tried the hybrid route several times and finally settled on fairway woods instead. The initial instructions, at least what I was told for hybrids, was to hit down on them, just like you would an iron. But, just about every time I stood over the ball and looked down, that part of the equation just seemed to slip my mind and I hit them like a fairway wood, with somewhat dubious results. Now I haven't the slightest understanding, as to the why's and where for's as to why i couldn't just make the same swing with both, but it didn't work that way. With that fairway 5 and 7 wood, they are for one a little longer shaft wise and knowing it's a wood just seems to equate to a better pass at the ball. A plus however, is that I hit the FW's longer and at my age, that's a big plus.

http://oklahomacity.craigslist.org/spo/5052953187.html

Mr Desmond offered a good suggestion, but if you want to explore a little wider range, I'd try to find a range where they have a Ping fitting instructor or at least the Ping 6 iron club cart. Hit the color code you feel is what you need and then go from there, either up or down on the lie angle. Pay attention to ball flight, for that's the real feedback. If you like a particular lie / color code, then you now know what you need to do to your clubs and if the lie angle is to much for adjustment, then it's clear you need new sticks. As for the driver, a 2 year old adjustable one should work fine.

Didn't think of that aspect, you could be correct. I'd like to think though, that his focus would be more on golf than the endorsement side, but who knows. Either way, I like to watch him play and hope he gets it done in one or more of the majors.

Well, I can see something of a dichotomy with this. On one hand he states to be playing less events, but then wants to play the Euro tour. He wants to now focus on the majors, but playing overseas IMO, would not be that beneficial for majors tuneups.On the other hand though, playing in Europe most likely would be less of a strain with dealing with fans and the media. It all boils down to how much focus and determination he wants to expend. I think he feels like the players was / is a major caliber event in some ways and he wants to use that as a springboard towards the given majors. We'll just have to wait and see what transpires.

I'm in a similar position, but a couple of years younger (71). I went to an "A" shaft that has more flex than any "R" shaft I tried and it works great. I just had to swallow my pride and focus on the score card. Don't rule out an "A", it could really get some life back into his game.

The Duo is only a 40 compression ball and made for slower swing speeds, so if your swing speed is above 85, this ball will not benefit you. As for slow greens, regardless of what we play, it will take a little extra effort to get it to the hole.

Probably still make a bogey!......

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!rule-01 To date, there are 32 rules listed in a book that is 180 pages plus and many of those rules are further broken down into subsections. Now to me, that's over kill. But lets not forget, that the ruling bodies (USGA / R&A;) have meetings, to discuss existing rules or to add new rules and/or possible subsections. As Dave PO43 offered. there were originally 13 rules, that seemed to cover what needed to be covered and was simplistic (1 page), compared to what we have now. When folks have to have a discussion or debate on a ruling, because one of the sub-sections may be causing a complete understanding of what and why, then it's not as black and white as some think.

Through the years, the rule book in golf has become increasingly stout. Where you almost needs a law degree to interpret the party of the first part in correlation to the plaintiff and the aforementioned party of the second part and so on and so forth. Now looking back at the USGA rules committees, one can see were the legalize came from. Now from my perspective, a rule should be black and white, not open to interpretation or debate. In my opinion, just one or two simple rules are needed. 1) Play it as it lies. 2) Don't touch the ball until it's holed. Seems very simplistic and that's most likely the way folks played in the beginning. Anyone ever tried playing under this aspect? if not, give it a try and see what happens. Could be interesting.

Now a lot depends on what you mean by long putts. If we're in the 15 to 20 foot range, the pro's don't make all that many and their playing on really good greens but anything longer should be looked at as a lag for a good 2 putt. I recall a question asked of Arnold Palmer and Trevino, "if you could change one thing about the way you played the game, what would it be?", they both answered, Putt left hand low. As for your particular problem, decide on what grip you want / like and practice, practice, practice.

So, where is Rory moving to.........Florida?

Never mind, I was going to rant, but it's not worth the effort...........

I gave up cable long ago. The only channel I miss is the golf channel and that's only on Thursday's and Friday's, when a big tournament is on. As for other viewing, I went the Hulu route for $20 bucks a month, since we already had internet access and can watch a variety of cable TV shows that way. Now if ESPN (watched the Masters that way) televises some golf, that's another plus. I'm just waiting for the underground geek ninja's to find a way to get all this stuff for free. I use an antenna now also, for local channels and get great reception and also for free. I just find it ludicrous, to pay for something that I still have to watch commercials. The cable folks are getting it from both ends, but not anymore from me.

I carry a 60 degree, with almost no bounce and play it like a normal bunker shot, with one exception and that being a full swing with more power than a regular soft sand shot. It's a feel shot in a way. Try to borrow a wedge that has little to no bounce and try to practice it after a rain or they just watered the green, would be very beneficial to have in your shot assortment.

Anybody that goes after the ball with a lot of physical determination (hard swings), will have to either adjust the swing, as the body will most often deteriorate from wear, and adjust their equipment accordingly also. Tiger went / goes after the ball very hard and his body paid the price, Rory goes after the ball hard, but not as hard as Tiger, but it's still a more physical approach, then most of those playing. It only takes one wrong move against the back, for something to go wrong and when you swing violently, your rolling the dice and it's only a matter of time until snake eyes pops up. Look at all the senior player, VJ comes to mind right away, I have watched them for all of their careers, and I can't remember anyone of them, swinging at the ball with the gusto of Tiger or Rory. Now grunt or full contact golf, may be the order of the day for today's young guns, but the body can only take so much and there seems to be more and more players on the regular tour, that are having health issues from injuries. I remember learning the game and the biggest information past on was, each club is designed to move the ball a specific distance. Let the club do the work and don't over swing.

Play with this guy..............

Now I realize that there are many factors in deciding shots from this range (60 - 100), like bunkers, water, elevated green or whatever else should come to mind. I'm old, old school, which means that I was brought up on public course greens that measured 5 if we were lucky and wouldn't hold a grenade. The only way we could overcome these conditions or should we say lack of, was to play bump and run. Needless to say, that play has followed with me and has served well even in today's better conditioned courses. Now I should state that the B&R; has limited distance factors. From 70 to 100 yds, I'm going to hit a SW or even a 60, if the lie permits. If it doesn't, then I can still attempt a B&R; with a much more successful outcome than a bad wedge.The nice thing about playing the B&R; is that it doesn't take very much practice time to get a fairly decent feel for it, as opposed to attempting to fly shots into the green from varied lies. A B&R; really doesn't care what the lie is, the approach to moving the ball is the same, just decide on what club you want to use, put it back in your stance and hit slightly down on it. Now granted, if you have to hit over something, then it's a carry shot, but if the green is open in front of you, give it a try. Just might change your approach to these shots and if it's not for you, that's fine, just be careful of that bladed 60 or that fat 56.

Just happen to talk to a Srixon rep awhile back and asked him about their yellow balls. To me, the balls cover seemed harder and he stated that because of the dye used, it did make them a little harder. When I putted with them, they kind of shot off the putter face, in contrast to the Pro V which felt softer and seemingly came off the face with less velocity.

Mike Weir - age 45 / 2014 stats = 1 2nd place, 1 top 10, 1 top 25, total events -25, cuts made -9 / Money earned $854,413 / 2015 stats = 1 top 25, events - 13, cuts made - 1 Earnings - $72,800 Now while that's not great, compared to what the majority of the current young guns are doing, I think I could live with it. Now as for Mike, at age 45 and having health issues, I think it would be prudent, if he rested, healed and prepared for the senior tour.