Tradition vs. Evolution in Golf

[Thomas Dai]

Nice thoughts from DLS, Doug and Jim.

If you're playing golf for casual or social or just to get some fresh air purposes etc etc with your family or with some friends then does it really matter what sort of equipment you use so long as you don't cause any hassle to other players or damage the course?

But if you want to play competitively, even in a nassau or a pairs match within a foursomes of mates you need some rules and regulations to ensure the playing field is equal.

The question is, who sets the rules and regulations?

Are you happy that the rules and regulations of golf are set by folk in Far Hills, New Jersey in conjunction with other folk in St Andrews, even if they're  jointly seen by some as being perhaps excessively traditional and conservative? Or would you rather have the rules and regulations set by folk in Ponte Fedra Beach, (& Wentworth?) and Carlsbad etc etc with their various mercenary/commercial interests?

SLS says it nicely when he says "Baseball, by embracing the wooden bat, kept its playing fields relevant." and "I believe tennis missed the boat when it failed to regulate rackets."

In centuries past disputes were settled by swords and pistols. Perhaps the long and belly putter dispute could be settled by 'putters at dawn', only thing is, what length should they be? Alternatively, perhaps we could ask Jerry Springer to chair a debate on the matter?!

All the best.

[David Harshbarger]

I only need to hear one person say "I play more now that I can anchor the putter and get past the yips" to understand the anchoring ban is misguided.  And as Ian says, the anchoring ban comes from the camp that sees conforming to their norms as protecting their game.  This is the same camp that decries cargo shorts and denim, to tell the working class they aren't welcome, to be blunt.

Put me in the camp that says "Spread the word, golf is meant to be fun.". Deal from there and you can't be far wrong.

But what about the argument that there are other things that would get people to participate more?  Some guys would play more if they made more birdies and eagles, let's make all par 3s par 4s, 4s 5s and 5s 6s, and look at how many more birdies and eagles everyone is making and how many more people start shooting under par!  Those of us who played before the change will always know in the back of our minds it is all a sham, but perhaps after a few decades we'd get used to it and some of us would resist if the USGA tried to take it back.  Those who grew up under that system would resist much more, imagining a future in which they never again break par.

If we try to tilt the rules towards increasing participation there are a lot of changes we might make, both the silly (like the above) and those that could change the basic character of the game, like making OB and lost balls distance only penalties (or lateral hazards) or making "winter rules" the law of the land so no one ever has to play out of a divot or bare spot ever again.  The only difference between allowing that and anchoring is the latter has been allowed for a couple decades and some people got used to it.

If anchoring had been specifically banned but winter rules had been formalized under the USGA/R&A rules in the mid 80s and they were looking to change that rule, I can well imagine some golfers claiming that change would cause them to participate less, imagining all those times over the years they've saved themselves from an awful fate by rolling the ball over from some guy's attempt to wedge down to China into a perfect lie.

If the rules are to take maximization of participation in account, the USGA might as well stop all research into rolling back the ball, because if people are worried anchoring will reduce participation in a material way, imagine what taking away a lot of people's 300 yard drives would do?

Doug,

Thanks for playing out some of the changes we would make in the rules when dealing from the point of making it more fun.  Most of the time I play, even in modest league play, but certainly in recreational play, if a shot is known to be OB or lost we play a provisional, but if the ball should be findable but is not, we usually drop from around where it should be.  It's a pace of play thing. 

With the kids we'll sometimes let them improve a lie, since playing from under trees and shrubs is not productive. 

I personally draw the line on Winter Rules, which is a pox on the game, but I understand why it is so popular.  My club excuses away our low maintenance budget by playing winter rules through the season.  At least it's acknowledged, I guess.

What's different about all of these rule bendings and the equipment rules violations, and now this pseudo equipment ruling, is that these cheats are n't mutually agreed to and mutually beneficial to all of the players.  If we agree to play lost balls as stroke only, later should I lose a ball, I expect to be granted that courtesy.  If we agree to winter rules, I expect to improve my lie when I see fit, as I expect you to.

But, if you show up with an illegal driver, anchoring your putts, and non-conforming balls, unless I've invested in illegal armaments, bending the rules provides only unilateral benefits, and that's not fair. 

[Garland Bayley]

Dave,

The USGA says it has put limits on the stroke in the past. Quoting from the rules section of their website:

d. Alignment

Appendix II, 1d provides that:

When the club is in its normal address position the shaft must be so aligned that:

(i) the projection of the straight part of the shaft on to the vertical plane through the toe and heel must diverge from the vertical by at least 10 degrees. If the overall design of the club is such that the player can effectively use the club in a vertical or close-to-vertical position, the shaft may be required to diverge from the vertical in this plane by as much as 25 degrees;

(ii) the projection of the straight part of the shaft on to the vertical plane along the intended line of play must not diverge from the vertical by more than 20 degrees forward or 10 degrees backward.

This Rule is particularly relevant to putters, and it exists mainly as a means for disallowing croquet or vertical-pendulum style putters (with vertical shafts) and shuffle-board style strokes, as well as designs which facilitate such strokes (see Figure 4).

Garland: you really don't understand either the principles or the nuances of the argument, do you?

First of all, I said "swing", not "stroke".   There is a massive difference between the two under the rules of golf.

Second, you apparently don't understand the difference between the I&B rules and the rest of the rules, do you?  The rule you cite is a restriction on a club, not a method of stroke.  It prohibits a club from being used, EVEN if it made with the most common putting method.  It has NOTHING to do with regulating how a stroke is made, let alone how a swing is made.  Nothing.  

Think.  Then do your homework.  Then get back to me.  You're so far from the facts here, its actually pretty sad.  

I doubt there are many on this board that agree with you hair splitting. It seems to me the USGA's use of the word stroke was intended to mean what you call a swing, especially when it comes to swinging the putter.

Melvyn has the following message he sent me for you and your ilk.
"Why will the golfing public not face the facts and admit that many just do not want to commit to the game of golf, wanting a weaker watered down game full of aids so it makes their game and score look good."

What you have been doing is watering down the game with a crutch, pure and simple. It may make your game and score look good, but it reflects poorly on you otherwise.

[Doug Siebert]

What's different about all of these rule bendings and the equipment rules violations, and now this pseudo equipment ruling, is that these cheats are n't mutually agreed to and mutually beneficial to all of the players.  If we agree to play lost balls as stroke only, later should I lose a ball, I expect to be granted that courtesy.  If we agree to winter rules, I expect to improve my lie when I see fit, as I expect you to.

But, if you show up with an illegal driver, anchoring your putts, and non-conforming balls, unless I've invested in illegal armaments, bending the rules provides only unilateral benefits, and that's not fair. 

I agree with what you're saying, but to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, many rules provide unilateral benefits, depending on the areas where the various players are skillful or not, whether the rules in question are in the book or mutually agreed "violations".

I tend to be a bit wild at times, so if we played together, unless you hit the ball like me, I'm probably going to benefit more than you from rules that reduce my penalty for hitting it OB or losing the ball (I also typically take the "drop it in the area" shortcut for lost balls rather than walking back to the tee, but I always add two to my score for it to better equate it to the actual penalty)  If I was playing with someone who always played winter rules, playing under the USGA rules would be an advantage for me (probably mostly mental, but that's still an advantage) since I always play the ball down.

Now granted rules that allow anchoring, >0.83 COR drivers, or balls that violate the initial velocity standard can only possibly be an advantage for those who make use of such equipment, but short of someone who yips themselves to death with a traditional stroke, or can't clear carry hazards without an illegal driver/ball, the advantage is probably more mental than based in reality.  I putt cross handed, because as a 16 year old shortly after I learned to play I misread instructions for a reverse overlap grip.  If putting cross-handed were made illegal, it would probably make little difference to me, aside from mentally getting used to it and feeling like I was robbed of the way I wanted to and was used to putting.