EXPERIMENT # 2

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayno,

Rather than baying at the moon, why don't you talk to some people who played when the stymie was allowed.

Perhaps they can do a better job of educating you with respect to it's use.

You won't accept Bobby Jones's word or mine, so perhaps others could help you see the light.

[jkinney]

Though now a part of history, the stymie remains immortalized in a marvelous mural in the foyer of NGLA....Perhaps it should be allowed to rest in peace there......

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Regarding your post #48, I just think you are really missing the point here---or my point.

All I'm talking about is the evolutionary history of the stymie---why it was part of the game and why it was eventually removed, as well as what was and was NOT the intention of it. In my mind, there is virtually no question at all, historically, that it was a result of what I've referred to as the second GREAT Principle of golf (I've already defined what that was considered to be by Tufts a few times now, so no reason to rewrite it).

This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether I personally endorse the idea of the stymie or whether I don't. All what I'm saying has to do with is the historical evolution of the stymie and the reasons it was eventually removed.

Listen, Pat, you may have your opinions on those reasons for it, as others on here do and you may think that your position is justified and confirmed by a guy like Bob Jones who played his career with the stymie and apparently defended it and proposed its continuation.

But I should remind you that even Bob Jones was not at the center of the analysis, the reviews of and the ultimate dispostion of the stymie in golf.

Men like Richard Tufts were there at that 1951 Unification Conference, and so were Joe Dey and Ward Foshay. The analysis of the history and evolution of the stymie and its removal from golf was one of the more significant discussions and resolutions of that conference of app 20 men. And it's not even that they all agreed on what that resolution should be. As I said earlier, Ward Foshay argued for its continuance but it just so happens his postion did not prevail back in 1951.

I'm sorry Pat, maybe you and I are old now and we think we have some authoritative opinion on the reason the stymie was in golf and was taken out because we just REMEMBER IT but I should remind you that neither of us have the knowledge of all of that Joe Dey and Ward Foshay had as they were right there in those meetings which discussed the entire history of the stymie and its future resolution which turned out to be its removal.

The point is for somewhat ancillary reasons (My Honor proposal) I happened to have the opportunity to have both of those men tell me the entire "Rules" history and evolution of the stymie---something which both of them were very much in a position to know, and to know a lot better than you or me just because we remember it. Those men were the Rules interpreters and Rules writers of that time and their knowledge of that history and evolution is a whole lot more comprehensive than yours or mine (had I not been able to speak with them about it).

So, please, don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about on that score----as I heard it directly from them and there is no possible way at all you could ever know about it what they did!

SAVY?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,

The thing about the stymie was this, whether or not it's occurrence was incidental, accidental, unintended, etc., it became a common and useful stratagem in singles play for two hundred + years.

It was before my time so I don't lament its passing, mainly because it doesn't fit our more modern sensibilities, but to downplay its usefulness, or look down on the players who used it, is ridiculous.





 



 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom,

The thing about the stymie was this, whether or not it's occurrence was incidental, accidental, unintended, etc., it became a common and useful stratagem in singles play for two hundred + years.

It was before my time so I don't lament its passing, mainly because it doesn't fit our more modern sensibilities, but to downplay its usefulness, or look down on the players who used it, is ridiculous.

Agreed.

TEPaul,

The issue was never about how the stymie came into existance, the issue was how the stymie came to be employed.

And, it was employed as I stated.

As to Joe Dey, you're not the only poster who had conversations with him.

[TEPaul]

Jim Kennedy:

I'll accept what you said in post #53 as an historical fact. With golf balls on greens all being directed at one small hole for two hundred years there is no way at all interference by golf balls with another golf ball did not happen, that's for sure.

My point is only that the reason this kind of interference took place is important to know in an historical context. It is important to know because it is central to understanding the evolution and the eventual plight of the stymie in golf (removal) and it's the very reason it will never return to golf via the Rules of Golf.

The larger point is that the Rules of Golf has never looked at the idea of interference with a golfer's ball by another golfer's ball as something that the Rules and the game wanted to intentionally promote as some form of intended defensive strategy of one player against another player.

This went to and does go to the very fundemental essence of the game that a golfer's ball is not vied for by his opponent. Intentional interference (defense) of this type is a form of one player vying with the golf ball of another player.

This fact can actually be seen in that even Jones admitted he REGRETTED his ball stymied Tolley's ball and the record of the 1951 R&A/USGA Rules Unification Conference and the recollections of the men involved (including those who still supported the stymie) shows that when an occurence such as the outcome of the final match of the 1938 US Amateur at GCGC turned on a stymie that the days of the stymie were numbered.

If The Rules of Golf and those who interpreted and wrote them intended that the stymie should be used as an intentional form of interference whereby one player could intentionally vie with another player's ball in some form of defense, firstly the stymie would not have been as controversial as it was for so many years and they never would have agreed to remove it from golf in 1951.

That's my point----eg this kind of intentional interference (defense) was never specifically promoted or intended in the game and certainly not via The Rules of Golf.

Patrick:

Perhaps you did have some conversations with Joe Dey or even Ward Foshay, both of whom were part of that 1951 Rules Conference (Foshay supported the stymie) but the point is did you ever actually have an in-depth conversation with either of them about the stymie and its history and evolution in golf, including why it was removed in 1951-52?   

Even Richard Tufts who was also part of that 1951 R&A/USGA Rules Unification Conference was sorry to see the stymie go, not because he endorsed the concept of interference and defense in golf but only because he did not believe that the sacred "Great Principle" of golf ("You put your ball in play on the tee and you do not touch it until you lift it from the hole") should be tampered with and weakened. However, as all of them apparently admitted there really was no other way but then to tamper with that sacred principle and weaken it in the interest of removing the stymie.

And that is what they did in 1951 and why they did it.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
I wouldn't quibble at all with your statements about the historical context of the Stymie rule. I even think one of the original rules of golf  (" At Hol(l)ing, you are to play your Ball honestly for the Hole, and not to play upon your Adversary’s Ball, not lying in your way to the Hole") is basically saying "Boys, this ain't croquet", and bolsters your position.

But I don't really agree with your premise that the modern rules bodies were somehow leery of breaking  the 'Second Great Principle' of golf if they were to rectify the situation because it was broken when the Stymie was created, only 31 years after the first 'Articles and Laws' were instituted.

[TEPaul]

"But I don't really agree with your premise that the modern rules bodies were somehow leery of breaking  the 'Second Great Principle' of golf if they were to rectify the situation because it was broken when the Stymie was created, only 31 years after the first 'Articles and Laws' were instituted."

JimK:

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I just recieved a memo from the golf suprerintendents of America, who have just placed a price on the head of one Mr Patrick Mucci...who they believe is responsible for a recent spate of green damage resulting from less than regular playing habits!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
In the original rules you could only move your ball if it was touching another. The creation of the Stymie let you move a ball that was (up to)six inches away from another. I think the principle was corrupted and the barn door opened once they expanded the relief. I also think that move , i.e, the six inches, expanded the notion of how the Stymie could be used by players. Couple that with how the rules always interpreted who has 'The Honor' and it's easy to see how and why the Stymie became what it was. 
Instead of spending the next century and a half trying to come up with some way to get around it they could have just eliminated it with a simple rule.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
In the original rules you could only move your ball if it was touching another. The creation of the Stymie let you move a ball that was (up to)six inches away from another. I think the principle was corrupted and the barn door opened once they expanded the relief. I also think that move , i.e, the six inches, expanded the notion of how the Stymie could be used by players. Couple that with how the rules always interpreted who has 'The Honor' and it's easy to see how and why the Stymie became what it was."

JimK:

Again, I do not believe anyone could say that the stymie was created at any particular time by the Rules of Golf. Just because the Rules eventually allowed a ball within six inches of another and closer to the hole to be lifted was not the creation of the stymie. What do you think they did before a ball could only be lifted if it was touching another? Anyone would agree that was a more complete stymie (interference) than the later one with the six inch lifting allowance.

I'm not sure what you mean by how the Rules always interpreted who had the "The Honor" or what that has to do with the stymie.  The Honor, Jim, only involves who plays first from the "teeing ground". I don't believe any golfer ever got stymied on a teeing ground, but what the hell, a lot of weird things have happened in golf with people who are a bit hazy on The Rules of Golf.

Actually, I should amend that. I did play against some weird guy from Atlantic City one time in the Philadelphia Amateur. Every time it was my Honor, he rushed over and teed his ball less than six inches in front of my ball. Of course if I asked him to remove it he would and I did that most of the times but a few times I decided to just hit a hook or slice around it.

After our match I asked him why he did that on every tee when it was my Honor and I believe he said some guy from New Jersey told him "Defense" was intended to be a part of golf. I believe he told me the player from Jersey who told him that was a guy by the name of Patrick Mucci.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
Excuse me, I meant to say order of play, not the honor.

What do you think they did before a ball could only be lifted if it was touching another. Anyone would agree that was a more complete stymie than the later one with the six inch lifting allowance

If the balls were touching you could move one of them, from the very inception of the rules. Once players were allowed to move those that were up to six inches apart, you have the Stymie.

[Paul Stephenson]

Intentional strategy or not, under today's rules Experiment #2 can be pretty much negated by two words:

"That's good."

Clearly the re-introduction of a stymie rule would require the tweaking of others.

I guess my questions would be:

If Jones' ball was inside 6 inches, why wasn't it picked up?

Why didn't Tolley concede the putt? (my assumption is he couldn't)

[TEPaul]

"If the balls were touching you could move one of them, from the very inception of the rules. Once players were allowed to move those that were up to six inches apart, you have the Stymie."


JimK:

What did you have then before the six inch rule when the balls were right next to each other but not quite touching? Was that the "Super-Stymie"? 

[TEPaul]

Paul Stephenson:

You know that is really fascinating. I have never tried to do any research on when the idea of "conceding" an opponent's next stroke came into the Rules of Golf.  Obviously it couldn't have been in effect in the Rules when Jones stymied Tolley like that or Tolley surely could have conceded a putt that short and removed the stymie and the interference to his putt.



"Tom,
Excuse me, I meant to say order of play, not the honor."


JimK:

I know you did but I decided to call you on it anyway so you could be reminded, once again, what a smart-ass I can be. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

JimK:
I know you did but I decided to call you on it anyway so you could be reminded, once again, what a smart-ass I can be.  Wink

How could I forget. 


Paul,
The rules during that time didn't seem to consider concessions. They had this:

SPECIAL RULES FOR MATCH PLAY COMPETITIONS - RULE 1
On the Putting-Green, if the competitor whose ball is the nearer to the hole play first, his ball shall at once be replaced.
The penalty for a breach of this rule shall be the disqualification of both competitors.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Kennedy,

Ignore TEPaul's recounting of the historical beginings of the stymie.

That's like being in bed with a gorgeous, voluptuous woman and spending your time telling her about the history of sex instead of engaging in sex.

The fact remains that the stymie was a tactical maneuver employed by golfers during a match.

It was a defensive strategy.

How it came to be used as such is simply a matter of common sense.

Something that seems to be not so common on GCA.com

[Joe Bausch]

I will add this 1922 article from the Philadelphia Public Ledger to the mix:

[Joe Bausch]

Then a week later, Alan Wilson wrote to Frank McCracken of the Public Ledger stating why the stymie was restored (it is at the end of the article below):

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
From the HRG: The first indication of conceding a putt in match play came in 1814 by the Edinburgh Burgess Golfing Society at rule#4 which says: No hole is gained unless the ball is holed, (except by consent of the parties) and a party losing their ball loses the hole.
 
Joe,
Good articles, especially:
.........."the old rule had stood the test of 200 years usage"

and:
......... "It does seem unsportsmanlike to deprive men of this kind of benefit which should result from the use of their skill".

also:
........"It (the Stymie) represents the most scientific phase of the game"

Something else that caught my attention was the apparent bifurcation of the rules, i.e., the banning of steel shafted clubs from tournament play, with no mention of a general ban. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayno,

Evidently, being able to "lay" a stymie and being able to overcome a stymie were valuable skills.

Read: DEFENSE

Also Read:  OVERCOMING DEFENSE

Both desirable skills that were rewarded by reinstituting the Stymie.

I suspect that its removal in 1951 was a concession to the "fairness" crowd.

[Mac Plumart]

A few days ago, I played hickories and gutties and used the stymie rule.

Totally cool and fun.  Great idea Patrick!

[Anthony Gray]

  Sounds too much like marriage to be fun. You're blocked and have to jump over stuff to go where you want because of the strategy of your oponant.

  Anthony

[Mac Plumart]

Yep...it was fun!!

One hole in particular my opponent (if you want to call him that, my friend is a more appropriate title), hammered his drive, hit a beautiful approach to 5 feet...easy putt for birdie...

I had a par putt from about 3 feet...and went for the stymie...and blocked him.

He pulled niblick and tried to jump me...the shot rattled in and out and trickled a bit away...we ended up tying the hole.

We laughed, smiled, and had a great time. 

Perhaps it is not something I want to play every time, but for a change of pace it was really, really fun!!

[Tim Bert]

Yep...it was fun!!

One hole in particular my opponent (if you want to call him that, my friend is a more appropriate title), hammered his drive, hit a beautiful approach to 5 feet...easy putt for birdie...

I had a par putt from about 3 feet...and went for the stymie...and blocked him.

He pulled niblick and tried to jump me...the shot rattled in and out and trickled a bit away...we ended up tying the hole.

We laughed, smiled, and had a great time. 

Perhaps it is not something I want to play every time, but for a change of pace it was really, really fun!!

two questions herefor someone that plays with modern rules and equipment... I must be mssing something.

1. If you were three feet for par and he was five feet for birdie, then why were you putting first?
2. Why wouldn't he putt around you for an easy two-putt par and the win?

Based on my understanding of reading this thread, it seems like a very limited strategy that would only prove effective in the exact scenario Jones explained where you block to ensure the win, in which case making the putt would also secure the win, or when your opponent has so much pride that they refuse to putt around your ball