[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, you are confused. 


No, you're the one who's historically challenged and/or confused.

I doubt Bob Jones intentionally stymied any opponent. 

Then you'd be wrong again.

Of course he did, as did every golfer who played during the era of the Stymie.

The tactical methodology was to try to hole your putt, but, if you missed it, to miss it such that it blocked your opponents path to the hole.

It just wasn't proper sportsmanship. 


Of course it was.
You have some romantic notion that a golfer would rather lose a hole than lay a Stymie, and that's absurd.

You must be very young.

Ask the old guys who played during the era of the Stymie about its application.

I realize the symie was in effect all those years, but the mindset of golfers was not to waste a shot and try to stymie the opponent, or by your terminology "play defense" like a goalie or in billiards. 


Obviously, you don't understand the Stymie or its application during play.

No, the stymie was a consequence and not a deliberate act. 


You don't know what you're talking about.
Please reread this post in its entirety.

I think you're wrong. 


I know I"m right.

I'm sure Tom Paul and others that know the history of the rules and decisions will know the answer far better than I.  As little as I know about the subject, it appears you know less 

You have so much to learn ... and I only have so much time.

Please ask TEPaul if he will allow me to transfer 5 of the 20 hours per week that I spend trying to educate him, to you.  I doubt that's sufficient for a complete education, but, it would be a decent start.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jim,
I wasn't there so I don't have first hand knowledge,  but I would suspect they were more in line with Pat's statement: "The tactical methodology was to try to hole your putt, but, if you missed it, to miss it such that it blocked your opponents path to the hole."

The intention was to hole your shot, but it is a concious decision to aim so that a miss would lay a stymie on your opponent. If both player's were putting for birdie, one from 3' and one from 30', it would be a smart play for the away player to try and leave his putt between the hole and his opponents ball, potentially forcing pars from both when a 'sure' loss was imminent.

Perfectly acceptable move in its day.

[wsmorrison]

I think it is ridiculous for any golfer to have a strategy that would consider the possibility of missing a putt and making sure it would block the opponents path to the hole.  Firstly, is a golfer to study both lines of play so carefully as to imagine the exact line of their opponent?  That would take at least twice as long as the time necessary to make the best stroke on your own putt.  Secondly, one golfer doesn't know what line and speed the other golfer will take.  Assuming where the best spot if one should miss a putt, which would yield the best defense for their opponent's putt is CRAZY.  OK, it is understandable why Pat thinks that way.  He's CRAZY  .  But come on, does anyone really think this was part of anyone's decision making?  I'd say if Bob Jones, Johnny Fischer or anyone stymied another, it was because they were trying to make their putt and it had nothing at all to do with figuring on where to best miss to create a stymie.

Pat may not think I understand the stymie or its application.  I don't think any top golfer is stupid enough to play defense.  It isn't the spirit of the game nor is it sportsman-like.   Pat, I may be young, but only relative to you.  I don't have a romantic notion about the sport nor sportsmanship.  I know what is smart play and what is dumb play.  I know what sportsmanship is all about and what gamesmanship is all about.  It is both dumb and unsportsmanlike to play for a stymie.  That's a bad combination to support an argument like yours 

[Jim_Coleman]

   When we play 36 per day, we have been playing the second round as a two man scramble, full stymie rules in effect.  That means you never mark a ball, and the team that's away always plays first (no gimmies).  It's fun.  The only debate comes regarding whether we play the sink/stymie option.  That is, if the first guy sinks, can his partner putt to try to stymie the opponent.  I am a fan of the sink/ stymie option, but the purists take the position that once a ball is holed, the hole is completed.  I point out that purism isn't really a factor in this game.
    And don't forget, a ball within 6 inches of another ball must be marked; it cannot stymie an opponent.  This guards against croquet, and is consistent with what I understand the stymie rule to have been.  (I believe a scorecard is traditionally 6 inches long so it can be used to measure a legal stymie.)  You'll be amazed how difficult it is to stymie someone and how rarely the situation comes into play.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Bobby jones' own recollection of the stymie he laid on Cyril Tolley. This is from a 1960 article, 30 years after the fact:


I have always regretted that such a splendid, exciting match should have been decided by a stymie, yet this was the case. We finished the 18th hole still even, and headed for the 19th. A slack second shot to the left of the green and a weak chip left Tolley 's ball seven feet short of the hole in 3, whereas mine in 2 lay only 10 feet away. Since the two balls were on the same side of the hole, when my very careful putt stopped only a couple of inches short the hole was completely shut off to anything but a miracle.

The stymie was an accepted and important part of match-play golf in those days, as I think it should be today and always. And as Tolley himself said, generously but truly, he had left himself wide open to it.

It seems pretty clear that when Jones said 'his careful putt' he knew that if he slid it by the hole Tolley would have the opportunity to tie him and they both would have had to continue on to another play-off hole. I'm not saying that Jones intentionally missed, but he was fully aware that he could also win by laying the stymie on Tolley, and as Tolley said, he left himself open to it. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think it is ridiculous for any golfer to have a strategy that would consider the possibility of missing a putt and making sure it would block the opponents path to the hole. 

You may think it's ridiculous, but, it was a fact.
Your problem is that you're contexting the issue of play pre 1951 by today's medal play mentality.

Your frame of reference is fatally flawed.

Firstly, is a golfer to study both lines of play so carefully as to imagine the exact line of their opponent? 

Unless you need a seeing eye dog, that calculation takes about a nano second.

That would take at least twice as long as the time necessary to make the best stroke on your own putt. 

Now that's ridiculous.
It doesn't take any time at all.
Unless, when you attempt to hole a putt, you try to hit it 8 feet past the hole.

Secondly, one golfer doesn't know what line and speed the other golfer will take. 

You must be kidding.
It's such a simple process that even TEPaul could be taught how to do it in a year or two.

Either that or you're so far out of your element that you don't know or understand anything about the stymie.

First, balls hit withing six (6) inches of the hole had to be lifted.
Second, using the face of a clock as the putting surface, if I'm putting from six o'clock, and my opponent is at twelve o'clock, do I want to putt so that the ball barely gets to the hole, or, do I want to putt so that I go past the hole, thereby potentially blocking my opponent should I miss the putt ?

If however, my opponent is at 5 or 7 o'clock, I'm going to try to just get the ball to the cup, hoping, if it doesn't go in, that it's short, not long of the hole.

Practice on a clock.  I'm sure that after a minute you'll begin to understand the strategy.

Assuming where the best spot if one should miss a putt, which would yield the best defense for their opponent's putt is CRAZY. 

No it's not, it's called common sense, course management and tactical play.
It was ingrained in the golfer's mind from the time they began playing.
You're just out of touch with the history of playing the game and the stymie.

OK, it is understandable why Pat thinks that way.  He's CRAZY  . 

That may be true, but, I still understand the basics of common sense.

But come on, does anyone really think this was part of anyone's decision making? 

Of course it was.
Shirley, you can't be that obtuse or obstinate.

I'd say if Bob Jones, Johnny Fischer or anyone stymied another, it was because they were trying to make their putt and it had nothing at all to do with figuring on where to best miss to create a stymie.

That's beyond stupid.

You're stating that Bobby Jones would try to make a putt, deliberately avoiding having his ball lay another golfer a stymie.  That he would try to just get his ball to the hole, knowing that if it rolled past the hole that it would stymie his opponent.

That's so beyond stupid that I have to assume someone has broken into your home and is using your computer.

Either that, or you're just out of touch with reality,

Or, you're trying to win an argument with me that you CAN'T win.

Pat may not think I understand the stymie or its application. 
For once you're correct.

I don't think any top golfer is stupid enough to play defense. 
It isn't the spirit of the game nor is it sportsman-like.   

It was an integral part of the game for centuries.
It was IN the spirit of the game, a predominantly match play game, and, it WAS sportsmanship-like.

Pat, I may be young, but only relative to you.  I don't have a romantic notion about the sport nor sportsmanship.  I know what is smart play and what is dumb play.  I know what sportsmanship is all about and what gamesmanship is all about.  It is both dumb and unsportsmanlike to play for a stymie. 

Let's just leave it that you don't know what you're talking about, and, you're probably relying on TEPaul's understanding of the stymie and play involving the stymie, and understanding that's wrong as well.

That's a bad combination to support an argument like yours 


My argument is well founded since it's supported by the facts, yours by some romantic and erroneous notion of how play was conducted prior to 1951.

Why do you ignore Bobby Jones's OWN words ?

You're in denial about the facts, play and Jones's use of the Stymie, and as in baseball, you've had your three strikes.  You're OUT on this issue.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bobby jones' own recollection of the stymie he laid on Cyril Tolley. This is from a 1960 article, 30 years after the fact:


I have always regretted that such a splendid, exciting match should have been decided by a stymie, yet this was the case. We finished the 18th hole still even, and headed for the 19th. A slack second shot to the left of the green and a weak chip left Tolley 's ball seven feet short of the hole in 3, whereas mine in 2 lay only 10 feet away. Since the two balls were on the same side of the hole, when my very careful putt stopped only a couple of inches short the hole was completely shut off to anything but a miracle.


The stymie was an accepted and important part of match-play golf in those days, as I think it should be today and always. And as Tolley himself said, generously but truly, he had left himself wide open to it.[/b]


Jim, thanks for the quote.

However, Wayno will deny and/or ignore Jones's OWN words,
Jones's description of the event, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, Jones's statement that the stymie should ALWAYS remain as an important part of match play.

How on earth can a prudent person ignore Jones's strong endorsement of retaining the stymie in match play ...... FOREVER ?

It seems pretty clear that when Jones said 'his careful putt' he knew that if he slid it by the hole Tolley would have the opportunity to tie him and they both would have had to continue on to another play-off hole. I'm not saying that Jones intentionally missed, but he was fully aware that he could also win by laying the stymie on Tolley, and as Tolley said, he left himself open to it. 

Agreed.

[Michael Moore]

If Bob (we all know he hated "Bobby") Jones was such an eager proponent of the stymie, why would he say that he "regretted that such a splendid, exciting match should have been decided by" one?

[Jim Nugent]

Thanks again, Jim Kennedy.  That clears up my main question about intentional stymies: how you pull them off.  Would seem real real hard, except when the two balls are on the same or nearly the same line. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

If Bob (we all know he hated "Bobby") Jones was such an eager proponent of the stymie, why would he say that he "regretted that such a splendid, exciting match should have been decided by" one?

You should be able to figure that out.

Jones was crystal clear in embracing the stymie and lobbying for its perpetuation.

To quote him, subsequent to the match:

The stymie was an accepted and important part of match-play golf in those days, as I think it should be today and always.



The validity of the above statement is irrefutable.

[Michael Moore]

Pat -

Your original question contemplates whether it is "fun" to lay a stymie on your opponent or to negotiate one.

Bob Jones indicates that it was "regretful" to have won via stymie. Why do you think he would say that?

[Jim_Kennedy]

More Jones:

 "I have always been thankful that the governing bodies of golf on both sides of the Atlantic have resisted changes in the rules. Throughout the years there have been plenty of suggestions for changes, but few have been made. The one instance which I think was a real mistake was the elimination of the stymie.
     It has been appalling to me to find that there are golfers of today who do not even know the meaning of "stymie." Twenty years ago I should not have dreamed that it would ever be necessary to explain that a stymie results, in match play, when one ball on the green interposes some or all of its mass between the other ball and the hole. For a while, in the U.S. , the offending ball could only be removed if it was within six inches of the hole, which was tantamount then to concession of the remaining putt; but now a player may insist upon its removal from any distance if he "considers that it might interfere with his play."
     Two aspects of the stymie (under the rules in force at the time I played) must be understood. If the balls lie so that the space between them is less than six inches, the nearer one may be lifted. Thus, if a player's first putt should leave his ball less than six inches from the hole, he cannot be stymied. Also, within a radius of two feet, a competent player can make, almost every time, any stymie that may be laid him. It is not likely, therefore, that anyone will ever lose a hole by reason of a stymie unless he has left himself in a vulnerable position.
     It has been said that the stymie is unfair, that it brings a factor of bad luck into the game. True, it can, but it is not typical. One might say, for instance, that my win on the 19th hole at St. Andrews over Cyril Tolley was a lucky win. This was a typical stymie situation, but did luck play a part in it? I had played the hole better all the way, after the tee shot. The question is: How much better must a man play a hole in order to be entitled to win it?
     With the stymie in the game, match-play golf becomes an exciting duel in which the player must always be on guard against a sudden, often demoralizing thrust. More than anything else, it points up the value of always being closer to the hole on the shot to the green and after the first putt. The player who can maintain the upper hand in play up to the hole rarely suffers from a stymie.
     In my observation, the stymie has more often been the means of enforcing a decision in favor of the deserving player, rather than the contrary. I think that today as in the past it merits a respected place in the game. I know that a return to it would greatly enhance the interest, suspense and excitement of match-play golf for player and spectator alike."

[wsmorrison]

Jones clearly appreciates the stymie and thinks that it promotes bold and excellent play.  I agree and think the stymie is a great idea.  However, nowhere in Jones's discussion of the stymie does he suggest that it is a defensive play and one that should be proactively taken.  It is a consequence that he appreciates not a strategy he promoted.

I would bring the stymie back but I'm sure most golfers would not learn the proper application of the rule and it would be a haphazard process.  I don't think I would travel to north Jersey if they are practice defensive stymies.  As ridiculous as it sounds to execute, it is not sportsmanship as I know it.  Pat, you need some Quaker influences--big time 

[Jim_Kennedy]

If Jones regretted it, it was because of his admiration and friendship for Tolley, and his impression of their match. This is the beginning of the article I posted at reply #29 
    
     "From the start, everyone around St. Andrews seemed to be looking forward to the possible meeting of Cyril Tolley and me on Wednesday afternoon. Cyril, too, had a narrow escape in the first round, but he managed to make it. No one had any illusions about Cyril. He had always been a fearsome competitor in this championship. He had won it for the second time the year before. He was a big, powerful player with an exquisite touch in the short game, and in my opinion the most dangerous man I could meet in an 18-hole match at St. Andrews.
     Cyril and I had been very good friends for many years before that day, and we have remained fast friends ever since. I know that match still stands in his memory, as it does in mine, as an afternoon in which each of us called on every resource in an all-out effort to beat the other. I felt the same exultation and desperate urgency I should expect to feel in a battle with broadswords and cudgels. We played in literally half a gale, and in 16 holes the match was brought back on six occasions from one down to even, as we alternated in taking the lead. The play on the 17th, the famous Road Hole, is still being discussed. That it was a break for me is undeniable. Just how colossal a break it was will perhaps never be known. The facts are as follows:
     The two drives, over the sheds, with the wind behind, were long, with Cyril out in front. My ball lay near the left side of the fairway, his about center. Playing the odd, my second was an iron, to the left of the Road Bunker. The ball bounded into the mass of spectators and dropped on the apron at the back of the green, a few feet off the putting surface. Tolley 's second was short, and curled off the slope at the front of the green, stopping in a position that left the bunker between his ball and the flag.
I, being away, chipped to a distance of approximately eight feet from the cup. Tolley's little pitch dropped exactly in the only possible spot, barely over the bunker, at the top of a slope running down to the hole. His ball stopped within two feet of the cup. I holed the eight-footer, and Cyril, of course, holed his for the half.
     The point of controversy was (and still is): Where would my ball have finished had it not been stopped by the crowd? If the ball would have gone into the road, the stopping of it definitely saved for me the hole and the match. If the ball would have stopped either on the 18th tee or in the rough beyond, I think in all reason I could have approached as well as I did.
     At least one observer thought that I had played directly into the crowd, knowing they were packed so densely that the human barricade must stop my ball. This was very definitely not the case. I should never have been so heedless of the possibility of injury to a spectator. I played only after several minutes, and after it had become apparent that the stewards could move the crowd no farther and my own attempt to wave the spectators back had had no effect.
     I attempted to play a soft shot with a four-iron, designed barely to pass the bunker at the left of the green. I have a very distinct recollection that as I swung the club I was acutely aware that the ball must pass the bunker. If it did not, my situation would be hopeless. I know that I gave the shot a little extra nudge. I saw the ball land even with the bunker and take a bound forward. I know it was strong, but I don't know by how much. Yet I did see it strike a spectator and drop near the green.
     Tolley , seeing my ball so well located, decided that in order to save a half he must go for the flag. It cannot be stated as a fact, but it is nevertheless my conviction that Tolley 's third shot on this hole has never been surpassed for exquisitely beautiful execution. I shall carry to my grave the impression of the lovely little stroke with which he dropped the ball so softly in exactly the right spot, so that it finished dead to the hole. It certainly put the seal of necessity on my eight-foot putt. If I had not holed it, I would not be writing this story.
     I have always regretted that such a splendid, exciting match should have been decided by a stymie".............
 

[Jim_Kennedy]

However, nowhere in Jones's discussion of the stymie does he suggest that it is a defensive play -W Morrison

I think you've missed Jones' point when he said ..."when my very careful putt stopped only a couple of inches short the hole was completely shut off to anything but a miracle."

This was a defensive and proactive strategy on Jones' part. Why would he stress the care he took in making the putt? Do we think it's because he was worried about hitting his 10'er well past the cup and possibly missing the comebacker? It is readily apparent why he was being so careful with the putt, his strategy was to see it just topple into the cup or lay a stymie on Tolley. That's as proactive as one can be.

 

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Apparently you don't really understand the evolution of the stymie in golf or the real reason it was part of golf. Neither golfers nor particularly Rules writers of any time actually thought of or even wanted to introduce the stymie to golf simply to create interference or some defensive strategy in golf for a player to use his ball to intentionally block the path of his opponent's ball. The only reason the stymie existed or even remained as long at it did is because it just happened to be the unintended result of a Priniciple of golf that existed from the beginning of golf that Richard Tufts referred to as one of the two "Great" Principles of golf, in this case: "You put your ball in play at the start of the hole, play only your own ball and do not touch it until you lift it from the hole."

THAT is the only reason the stymie existed in golf, Patrick. The stymie was not created in and of itself to introduce some defensive strategy into golf (even Match play golf) by purposefully introducing a form of "interference". The fact that it did that because of the purist preservation of that great Principle against touching one's ball between putting it in play at the tee and lifting it from the hole was the only reason the stymie existed. Over time the effects of the stymie (in a few championships) just served to highlight that this kind of interference or defensive strategy was not something that golf Rules ever intended.

And that's why over time despite the protestations of the purist contingent (primarily to preserve that great principle of not touching one's ball between tee and hole) the stymie was removed (1951-52).

Bob Jones did like the stymie, probably because he was very good at compensating for being stymied and he played it his entire career, but Bob Jones was not the last word in Rules at any time in his career and he was not involved in writing or interpreting them.

Matter of fact, the Di Vencenzo affair at the Masters only shows how and why Jones felt he needed to depend on those who really knew the Rules in detail instead of trying to make difficult Rules interpretations himself.

 

[TEPaul]

"I have always regretted that such a splendid, exciting match should have been decided by a stymie"............."

Jim Kennedy:

This is about the best example we can find for why the stymie was finally removed from golf. Almost noone really wanted to see something important revolve around a stymie. The people back then who lobbied to keep the stymie (in the 1920s, 30s, 40s) and until it was finally removed in 1951-52 were really lobbying for another and far more fundamental cause and Priniciple within the Rules of Golf.

If the Rules writers were to consider the reinstitution of the stymie in golf (which they are not going to do) then they would also of necessity have to reinstitute the very thing that created the stymie in the first place---eg that you basically be prohibited from touching your ball on a putting green. At least they would need to reinstitute that if they are interested in returning to the very Principle of golf that created the stymie in the first place. If they did otherwise they would then be inserting something into golf---eg interference and defensive strategy that was never originally intended in golf.

In that case, many other things would need to follow such as the requirement that golfers play their ball on greens even if it had mud all over it, for instance. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
I'm not advocating a return to the Stymie.

You could always lift your ball, from the very first rules of golf until now. Only difference, we now allow many more situations when it's possible, unlike the first rules which only allowed it if balls were touching.
The 'six inch' rule was adopted to give a player on the green a chance to play his ball, ergo, the Stymie.

[TEPaul]

"You could always lift your ball, from the very first rules of golf until now. Only difference, we now allow many more situations when it's possible, unlike the first rules which only allowed it if balls were touching."

Jim:

My point is you couldn't lift your ball on the putting green basically other than the particular ways it related to the stymie. 

But my larger point to Patrick is the idea of introducing some sort of defensive strategy into golf by interference of one player's ball in relation to another player's ball was not something golf and the Rules writers and interpreters contemplated or came up with specifically. That fact of the stymie was merely an unintended consequence of that Great principle of golf (you don't touch your ball except in extreme cases---eg. interference by something not part of the course or the match).

This goes to another Principle in the Rules of Golf as explained by Tuft's in his book "The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf."

That was one of his so-called "working principles" that says: "The Rules should not attempt to cope with the exceptional."

What he meant by exceptional was merely those situations which are considered to by rare cases.

To the extent that the stymie began to cease to be a rare case (or certainly a very significant case where the outcome of a championship revolved around a stymie) is when its removal began to be proposed and discussed. Even if its removal took many many decades because of its basic protection by the OPERATION and MAINTENANCE of that GREAT Principle (not to touch your ball), it's pretty clear when the Rules writers and interpreters on both sides of the Atlantic began to see how its use may've become something golfers felt was an intended defensive strategy to essentially vie with an opponent's ball via interference, the days of the stymie were clearly numbered!

Matter of fact, the case that was basically given during the discussions of the Joint Rules Committees of the R&A and USGA in that famous 1951 Rules UNIFICATION conference in which, among many other Rules issues the plight of the stymie was discussed, was the unfortunate case of how that USGA championship turned on a stymie on the last hole at GCGC----ironically a club Patrick Mucci belongs to.

When that happened it seems even the purists understood the days of the stymie were numbered.

One of the reasons I know all this is because of my long conversations about it with Ward Foshay, a past president of the USGA and a long time supporter of the stymie (and one of the USGA participants in that 1951 Joint R&A/USGA Rules Unification Conference). He did not want to see it removed from golf---ever, but he certainly could understand why it was.

I got to know Foshay best in my "Honor" proposal, which he supported in principle and in writing. My original problem with him, though, was at first he told me if he agreed to support my "Honor" proposal he wanted me to agree to attach to the "Honor" proposal, a proposal to reinstitute the stymie in golf. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

"That fact of the stymie was merely an unintended consequence"

..and that's also part of this discussion, as the idea has been put forth that the use of the Stymie was in some way not proper, or something no 'gentleman' would do to another.

The Stymie had been around for over 200 years and was most likely used countless times. I don't think too many players would have looked at it as an 'unintended consequence' of a rule but as a legal and useful stratagem.


p.s. .then I would say Fo'shame on Foshay

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat -

Your original question contemplates whether it is "fun" to lay a stymie on your opponent or to negotiate one.

That's correct.

Bob Jones indicates that it was "regretful" to have won via stymie.

That's NOT what he said.

He said:
"I have always regretted that such a splendid, exciting match should have been decided by a stymie, yet this was the case.


Jones would have prefered to have won via a long putt or magnificent approach, due to the general quality of the match.  But, he won by carefully laying a stymie on his opponent

Why do you think he would say that?

See my comment above

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jones clearly appreciates the stymie and thinks that it promotes bold and excellent play.  I agree and think the stymie is a great idea. 

However, nowhere in Jones's discussion of the stymie does he suggest that it is a defensive play and one that should be proactively taken. 


Of course he does.
He clearly states that he took extra care to make sure that his putt, if not holed would prevent Tolley from making a par.


A slack second shot to the left of the green and a weak chip left Tolley 's ball seven feet short of the hole in 3, whereas mine in 2 lay only 10 feet away. Since the two balls were on the same side of the hole, when my very careful putt stopped only a couple of inches short the hole was completely shut off to anything but a miracle.

It is a consequence that he appreciates not a strategy he promoted.

You don't know what you're talking about.
It was CLEARLY his strategy.
To deny so is to be out of touch with reality.

I would bring the stymie back but I'm sure most golfers would not learn the proper application of the rule and it would be a haphazard process. 

You're in denial with respect to the proper application.

I don't think I would travel to north Jersey if they are practice defensive stymies. 

As ridiculous as it sounds to execute, it is not sportsmanship as I know it.  Pat, you need some Quaker influences--big time 

Wayne,

Why not admit that outside of Ardmore Ave, your familiarity with golf's history is ......... sketchy.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

Apparently you don't really understand the evolution of the stymie in golf or the real reason it was part of golf.

I understand it quite well.

Neither golfers nor particularly Rules writers of any time actually thought of or even wanted to introduce the stymie to golf simply to create interference or some defensive strategy in golf for a player to use his ball to intentionally block the path of his opponent's ball.

No one on this thread has suggested that other than you and/or Wayno.
So, why bring up a non-factor ?

The only reason the stymie existed or even remained as long at it did is because it just happened to be the unintended result of a Priniciple of golf that existed from the beginning of golf that Richard Tufts referred to as one of the two "Great" Principles of golf, in this case: "You put your ball in play at the start of the hole, play only your own ball and do not touch it until you lift it from the hole."

The reason that the stymie existed is irrelevant.
It was an integral part of match play.
It was an intelligent and prudent strategy, used universally.

You'd have to be an absolute imbicile NOT to factor it into your play during a match, just as Jones did in his match with Tolley.

It was routinely used defensively, just as Jones points out in his match with Tolley.

THAT is the only reason the stymie existed in golf, Patrick. The stymie was not created in and of itself to introduce some defensive strategy into golf (even Match play golf) by purposefully introducing a form of "interference". The fact that it did that because of the purist preservation of that great Principle against touching one's ball between putting it in play at the tee and lifting it from the hole was the only reason the stymie existed. Over time the effects of the stymie (in a few championships) just served to highlight that this kind of interference or defensive strategy was not something that golf Rules ever intended.

You and Wayne are the ONLY ones making that statement, hence, it's irrelevant.  NO ONE on this site/thread ever suggested that it was introduced as a defensive strategy. 

The inherent nature of the stymie was what allowed it to be incorporated into play as a defensive strategy.

To deny the above is to be beyond stupid.

Bob Jones did like the stymie, probably because he was very good at compensating for being stymied and he played it his entire career, but Bob Jones was not the last word in Rules at any time in his career and he was not involved in writing or interpreting them.

He may have been the premier player of his day and he used and endorsed the perpetuation of the stymie.  He was alleged to be the epitome of the amateur spirit and a purest.

As to the rules, and those who make them, you seem to convey an element of infallibility to them.  I suppose you agree with being able to identify your ball in a hazard, club head size, directional markings on a golf ball, etc., etc..

Matter of fact, the Di Vencenzo affair at the Masters only shows how and why Jones felt he needed to depend on those who really knew the Rules in detail instead of trying to make difficult Rules interpretations himself.

That's irrelevant to this discussion.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul & Wayno,

Your theory that stymies were unintended consequences is beyond dumb.

Stymies could be  an unintended consequence, but, they clearly could be INTENDED consequences, as Jones describes.

Please, stop drinking the local Philly tap water and buy bottled water.
Clearly some contaminent has destroyed what few brain cells you have left.

You'd have to be a moron not to understand the spacial relationships between your ball, your opponents ball and the hole, and, the tactical implications of where you would want your ball to end up, if it missed the hole.

To deny the above indicates that you're incapable of rational thought, and clouds your entire Wilson/Merion defense   [/b] 

[wsmorrison]

I guess I know which way the wind is blowing.  Those refinery fumes must be heading Pat's direction.  Pat, close your windows and turn on the air conditioner you cheapskate.  Your letting in pollutants that are knocking out your few remaining brain cells.

You must've gone to the MacWood school of reading comprehension.  You'd be better off in the Evelyn Wood school of speed reading 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()