[Dan King]

According to the USGA and R&A:
"The R&A and the USGA continue to believe that the retention of a single set of rules for all players of the game, irrespective of ability, is one of golf's greatest strengths."

Does anyone here agree with this statement? When I think of why this is a game I love, the idea that I'm playing the same single set of rules as everyone else in the world is nowhere near the top of my list. Matter of fact, I'd even go so far as to say the number of golfers who play the USGA and R&A version of golf are a minority.

Am I out of touch or are the USGA and R&A?

Which one doesn't belong?

• Test of temper
• Trial of honor
• A revealer of character
• Getting close to nature
• Fresh air and exercise
• Sweeping of mental cobwebs
• Relaxation of tired tissue
• Playing by a single set of rules for the entire world

"It is a test of temper, a trial of honour, a revealer of character. It means going into God's out of doors. getting close to nature, fresh air and exercise, a sweeping of mental cobwebs and a genuine relaxation of tired tissues."
  --David Forgan

[JakaB]

Dan,

We're not talking about smoking weed on a windswept hill while discussing the historical significance of Thelonius Monk's influence on our take of the modern African American man.  There has always been a level of competition in the proper methods of getting high and a so called set of rules in doing so...ie...no seeds, single paper rolling, great music, etc. etc.  We all had a governing body..our peers...wasted individuals who seemed to get it...much like the USGA.

Remember your disdain for those who didn't follow the rules...the red neck, moterhead, disco loving guys who only used getting high for another way to get laid.  We didn't need them then and we don't need the ERC using cartball playing bastards now.   We need structure and rules...preferably written since our memories are shot...to put the seed popping, cell phone using, Freddie C. wannabees in their place at home with Amy sylicone and junior pussbucket.  Thats the joy of competition.

[Dan Kelly]

JakaB --

In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan: Well, there you go agaion -- killing another thread with just one reply.

What more is there to say?  

[Rick Shefchik]

Dan:

The number of golfers who play the USGA and/or R&A rules are not just a minority, they are a vast minority. At any given golf course anywhere in the U.S., on any day except tournament day, there are as many sets of rules being played as there are golfers on the course.

Part of this, frankly, is the fault of the USGA and the R&A. My wife is the rules chairman for her women's league this year, and knows the rule book pretty well. So do I. But night after night we discuss some rule question that has come up during her league events, and one or the other of us, or both of us, are stumped for the precise answer. Sometimes we'll be surprised when we consult our well-worn Decisions book and discover the answer was not what either of us thought; and other times we'll be frustrated that we can't find the answer at all.

For such an elegant, beautiful and essentially simple game, golf has created a byzantine and often punitive set of rules that the ruling bodies cannot hope to expect the general public to follow. And disrespect for the rule book leads directly to disregrad for equipment restriction, which in turn leads directly to equipment manufacturers continuing to produce products that challenge USGA and R&A authority.

We all play for different reasons; most of us here, I believe, play for the first seven reasons you listed in your post. But we're not much like the general golfing public, and I believe that if we and our ilk stopped playing golf tomorrow, the equipment manufacturers would hardly notice. There just aren't enough of us, even though our approach to the game is over-represented within and by the USGA.

So, back to your original point -- I completely agree that a unified set of rules is not on the radar screen when it comes to the reasons why most people play golf. There is rampant disrespect and disregard for golf rules -- even within my wife's league, there are players who just don't understand why you can't concede a 1-foot putt in a stroke-play event, and continue to do so -- and this unification of the two ruling bodies won't change that.

The USGA and R&A are out of touch -- not with us, so much, but with just about everybody else. I support their efforts to limit distance; I support the competition ball. I play by the rules, as far as I know and understand them. I just think they're fooling themselves if they think the average golfer cares about the latest decree from The Blazers.

[TEPaul]

Dan King:

I have no idea if you're out of touch or not--only you'd know that, but I don't think the USGA and R&A is for proposing that the game be playing under a single set of rules.

And even if the number of players that actually do play by their rules might be a minority--so what? Does that mean they should stop advocating one set of rules and give up on them?

Of course it doesn't. The rules of golf are there for people who want to use them--who enjoy using them! If other golfers don't want to use them so what?

The way you seem to look at the rules of golf is everybody should use them or even be forced to use them or else the USGA should get out of the business of monitoring the rules of golf altogether! That's ridiculous!

The rules of golf are the rules of a game for Chrissakes, Dan, not some penal code that the inmates of golf are forced to play under or pay some penalty! They're the rules for a game not the laws of some society that people get in trouble for breaking.

[Lou Duran]

What a novel articulation of the traditionalist argument from the mind of the incomparable JakaB!  I was a reluctant supporter of the competion ball for the less than 1% who are  tournament golfers, and for leaving the rest of us alone to live within current USGA guidelines.  Sandy Tatum's argument for one set of rules in his recent book has given me pause.  I understand Dan's point, which is more libertarian and contemporary.  But on balance, I believe that we are better off with one comprehensive set of well thought-out rules which apply to all.  The USGA/R&A reconciliation is a positive step in the right direction.

[Dan King]

I didn't mean to get off on a tangent about the value of the rules. Of course, if I hadn't gotten off on a tangent I wouldn't have gotten JakaB's wonderful reply.

Guess I should do my usual clarification. I like the Rules of Golf. I study them and I've gone to the PGA/USGA rules workshops. I have a number of decision books scattered around the house, with one that never leaves my special reading room.

That said, I fail to see how this idea of one set of rules could be considered one of the strengths of the game. I know a number of you are ranking junkies, so if you were to list out the top-10 reasons you love the game, would one set of rules show up in the top-10?

I hear plenty of people saying everyone in the world should play by one set of rules. I just don't hear the good reasons why. Would it really hurt our sport if the pro tours played by different rules than you and I?

It's my contention that the top golfers really don't play the same game as you and I. They have all kinds of temporary immovable obstructions and acres of golf courses marked as ground under repair. Matter of fact more often than not (especially in California) they don't even play golf, they play lift, clean and cheat.

Actually I just thought of one reason it is good they play by the same rules and that is for educational purposes. Most examples of golfers doing stupid things against the rules are courtesy of the tours. But I'd call that no more than a nice feature rather than a strength of the game.

"I don't know the traffic regulations of every city I get to either, but I manage to drive through without being arrested."
 --Lloyd Mangrum (on being assessed many violations as a result of not knowing the rules)

[TEPaul]

Dan, I really just don't understand your point. If I did then I might agree or disagree, no matter, but why do you think the game would be better off with a number of sets of rules or no rules? I really can't understand what you proposing except to say that a minority of golfers play by the present rules. So what? That has to be more than if there were no rules or a number of sets of rules which would be far more confusing than the rules already are.

Or are you saying that you think the rules should be simplified for everyone? One set of rules that's simpler for everyone to use. Is that what you're saying? But if you really feel that way why do you go to all those PGA/USGA workshops and have all those decision books around?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Dan,
All those TIO's are part of the rules of golf, so are the local rules, made up by clubs around the world, to address specific problems.
If you've ever played a game of 8-ball in a bar then the case for one set of rules becomes valid. Imagine the chaos on the course without them.

[Dan King]

TEPaul (back when I had no life I read every word he posted, now since I have less time on GCA, I only read every word he writes on issues I find interesting) writes:
Dan, I really just don't understand your point.

My comment only started as a response to the statement by the USGA and R&A:
"The R&A and the USGA continue to believe that the retention of a single set of rules for all players of the game, irrespective of ability, is one of golf's greatest strengths."

Would you agree that this single set of rules is one of golf's strengths?

I kind of went on a tangent about the rules themselves, which really have nothing to do with the value of that statement. The point about the minority of golfers playing the USGA/R&A version of the game was more to say if the USGA/R&A rules are such a strength, how is it that these large number of people find enjoyment in the game without the rules.

I enjoy reading the Rules of Golf. I enjoy playing by them when the time calls for that. But I much prefer to play golf games other than the USGA/R&A version. Sometimes the rules feel too much like a straight jacket, and I like the freer, less confining (but much less fair) game of my golfing ancestors.

"Forty-one rules aren't so many -- St. Benedict had 73 to keep the brethren on the straight and narrow."
 --Colman McCarthy, 1977

[JohnV]

Dan, I would agree that a "single set of rules" is not a reason I play the game.  But it is a reason I love the game.  I think you might be confusing those two ideas.  I read your list and the others are reasons for playing the game.  But, the fact that I could be a rules official on a tour with players from 20 different countries and they all knew the same set of rules applied was a bonus.  Baseball can't even get the same set of rules in their two major leagues, or should we call the DH a "local rule"

I'm glad that the USGA and R&A have gotten on the same page.  And it seems that each has given a little bit in the process which is good.

Having returned to public golf in the last few months, I definitely know that most golfers don't play by the rules in ordinary play and I am frequently saddened by how poor their knowledge of the basic rules is.  Even if we simplified the rule book to 5 pages they still wouldn't the rules.  But, when I get into a game that matters with some friends like you, Rich and Tom, we at least don't have to argue which set of rules we are going to play by that day.

So, I do think that a single set of rules is a strength of the game and I'm glad to see that any fractiousness between the USGA and the R&A has been resolved.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Dan, old friend

Golf without rules is just chopping and camaraderie.   Golf with rules is a learning experience and camaraderie.  I prefer the latter.

Slainte

Rich

[Peter Galea]

I've been called a rules cop before, (and other things unprintable) it's a moniker I don't mind. There have been many times on the first tee I've held up the USGA rulebook and said, "we're playing by these rules, right?"

It's like calling "Florida rules" before the break at a game of 8-ball.

[TEPaul]

Dan:

Sorry, I guess I sort of lost the subject of this topic--your topic--"Golf's greatest strengths?"

But to answer your question; Do I think one set or rules is one of golf's greatest strengths? Yes, I guess I probably do.

I might say more assuredly though that golf with many sets of rules or no rules would be one of golf's greatest weaknesses.

But I do hope that when you play your golf with your friends with whatever set of rules you choose to play with that day, that it's no real concern of yours what your doing in the context of the rules of the game. Golf isn't in the slightest bit negatively effected by what rules you and your friends play by, I'm sure. And anyone else who's not playing with you or your friends shouldn't be concerned either.

What a single set of rules do for the game though is give golfers who don't have their own rules or rules they can agree on something to play by--and there's nothing at all wrong with that--I think that is a strength of the game and without that would surely be a weakness of the game.

[RJ_Daley]

Dan I've been thinking about this for a few hours and have started to do a post supporting both sentiments.  I was trying to tie in the obvious analogies of sports like football and baseball where there are varying rules that have gone so far as to lead to sub-catagories of those sports.  For example, starting somewhere with rugby and evolving to someform of early football and then the forward pass and then variations of college and pro leagues, and touch, flag, arena etc....

But at the end of the slow train to conciousness, I thought that it is a 'great strength' that one set of rules is intended to govern/guide and apply to one game yet played on some 50000+ golf courses worldwide that are all different by definition of their natural environments.   One game (if allowed match or stroke play and other game variations in that regard) and many diverse fields of play, and the universe is all tied together nicely....

[Slag_Bandoon]

The game of golf has been around longer than the fledgling R&A and USGA rules.  It was created by interest and love and a multitude of intangibles that will forever be hypothesized about; here at GCA and on the playing fields.  So, to answer your question. . . "No, I don't think it's one of golf's greatest triumphs."  The rules are necessary and I abide by them to the best of my ability but I think we'd still play and enjoy the sport even if we had to make up rules as we went.  Something akin to Calvinball (Calvin and Hobbes) where the only rule is there are no rules. (I understand the irony of that statement.)   I suppose that would bastardize and unroyalize the self-righteous organizations but so does the newspaper in the game of life.  The Bill of Rights is a fine writ but we are compelled and, in fact, obligated, generation after generation to question everything in it.  The rules of golf should not be above ridicule, correction, or discussion.  

The Ten Commandments are there as a guideline.  I don't think I'm going to Hell for Coveting my neighbor's 300 yard drive.  I'm sure I'll go to Hell for all the other infractions though.  

[TEPaul]

I've been reading for so long a general tenor of opinion on here from many contributors about the USGA and the R&A and mostly that tenor is that the two rules bodies are extraordinarily self righteous!

This particular topic is about the rules of the game, I guess, and if the rules are a strength of the game? I tend to think so, some agree and others don't.

But through it all that tenor of feeling that the ruling bodies are self righteous. I submit that the rules of golf are more an accumulation of the game itself and it's own evolution with the people who have played it.  

No one has to play by the rules if they don't want to, they  won't get in trouble if they don't. But some like to, it helps them enjoy themselves, I guess.

But so many people seem to say; "It's not right the way it is, too complicated, too whatever and the ruling bodies are way to self righteous anyway. It should be done this way or that way, my way is better, this or that person shouldn't even be allowed to play the game!

All these opinions and the ruling bodies just trying to maintain most of what's always been pretty good about the game. As Joe Dey used to say; "Golf has done pretty well so far".

There are people who seem to think they have a better way, that the game should be played the way they say and all this time calling those who've tried to maintain the game self righteous.

I realize it will pissoff lots of people that I even ask but I think the better tenor and question is: Who is being self righteous now?

[redanman]

In all honesty, how many peopple, even here in this hardcore, fanatical, obsessed group play every shot, every play exactly as the rules stipulate?  How many people do you meet with handicaps that truly are representative of their games to allow a "Fair" competition?  I am currently at an honest 5.9 index which translates to a 7 most places and I am treated as a sand-bagging galoot by some of my friends.     (It will come down soon and I'll be just like an ATM again.



Golf's greatest strength is perhaps the memories it creates, real or otherwise.  

The richness of the memories on so many levels and so many senses is unparalleled.  Personal, physical, visual, olfactory.....Just like life itself, the overworn yet true similie to the game of golf.

[A_Clay_Man]

I think the one set of rules is important for the mere fact that it gives solice when/if you should have a problem with a fellow competitor($)  

It also makes moot all the periphrials, and subsequent added WORK, that seems to bog down legaslators in any congress, kanesset or committee.

As you pointed out, we seem to already play under different rules but the truth is some play golf but most go golfing.

The local rule is also an interesting question of rule interpretations. I especially like the rock rule. Where if there is rock in your swing, in a  hazard, you can move it.

 ::)If I were an equiptment manufacturer lawyer I'd argue that that rule alows me to avoid irrepairably damageing my stick.
Which will directly effect the companies ability to sell replacement clubs and therefore is in restraint of trade.

[Slag_Bandoon]

Walt Whitman...

We consider bibles and religeons divine--
   I do not say that they are not divine,

I say they have all grown out of you, and
   may grow out of you still,

It is not they who give the life, it is you
   who give the life,

Leaves are no more shed from the trees, or
trees from the earth, than they are shed out of you.

[Jeremy Glenn. (Guest)]

One set of rules???

Whoever said that golf ever had one set of rules?

There are already a number of variations to the rules between the USGA, the RGCA and the R&A.  Furthermore, the PGA Tour also has a different set of rules, and so do a number of pro tournaments.

And let's not get started with all the local rules...

Who cares by which rules people play, as long as those who are playing against each other play by the same rules.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan King,

The challenge.

The comraderie,

And the fact that the two are not mutually exclusive.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()