You may change one Rule of Golf ...

[Dan Kelly]

... in the interests of:

(a) improving golf course architecture; and

(b) making golf a better game.

Which rule would you change?

I'd change the rule that allows a player to carry 14 clubs. I'd allow no more than eight.

Rick Shefchik and I played a whole heckuva lot of golf yesterday: 4 rounds plus, from dawn to dusk -- our annual end-of-the-season tribute (surrender?) to the long, cold winter just ahead.

In our second round, we each played with seven clubs. Rick: Driver, 5-wood, 3-iron, 6-iron, 9-iron, sand wedge, putter. I: Driver, 4-iron, 6-iron, 8-iron, pitching wedge, sand wedge, putter.

I don't think Rick's score suffered much. I know mine didn't -- and I stuck with it for the 3rd round, and my score didn't suffer then, either.

My enjoyment of the game did not suffer, either. In fact, I had much more fun with seven clubs than I generally do with 14, because I was much more consistently forced to work the ball and to hit shots at 80% or 120% of standard if I wanted the ball to end up where I wanted the ball to end up. I needed to concentrate more -- which likely explains why I played better.

I think that most golfers, golfers much worse and much better than I am, would find greater pleasure in the game if they (and, of course, everyone else) were carrying fewer clubs and learning to hit them more imaginatively.

I'm sure others of you have given this more thought than I have, but... it seems to me that if GC architects knew that even good golfers wouldn't have a club that would comfortably fly a ball any given distance, their designs would likely offer more strategic options, feature more ground-game opportunities, and demand fewer heroic carries. They'd become, in other words, less totalitarian -- which would be a Good Thing, I gather, in the minds of almost everyone who posts here.

And I'm guessing, furthermore, that if carrying fewer clubs led to increased ground-game needs, which inspired more ground-game opportunities in new course designs, superintendents would start paying greater attention to that "ideal maintainance (sic) meld" ... so that golfers would not so commonly find mushy approaches to green openings.

Thoughts?    

[ChipOat]

Go back to the 1.62" ball.  Talk about something made for the ground game and a hard/fast maintenance meld!

[RJ_Daley]

No penalty if the ball oscillates on the green, in the wind, after you sole your putter.  At least, no penalty in Nebraska  

oops, sorry Dan, I forgot the thing about the rule change has to improve golf architecture.  In that case, it is about the ball as stated above as chipoat has already stated...

[SteveC]

Get rid of the rule against tapping down spike marks on the green. The idea that I should miss a putt beecause of a huge spike mark dead in my line is absurd. If I've got a dead straight, dead level 3 footer for birdie, should I be penalized because some knucklehead wearing spikes gouged up a spot 4 inches short of the cup and renders the putt literally unmakeable? It is the silliest rule in the book. Why on earth do they allow us to fix ball marks but not spike marks? It's crazy. Can someone convince me otherwise?

[THuckaby2]

SteveC:  here's the USGA position on spike marks, from the FAQ section of usga.org:

Q. What is the USGA position on spikemarks?
A. The Rules of Golf are based on two fundamental principles: (1) play the ball as it lies and (2) play the course as you find it. Permitting the repair of spike marks on a player`s line of play or putt would be contrary to these fundamental principles. Rule 16-1c permits the repair of old hole plugs and ball marks but does not permit the repair of spike damage or other irregularities of surface on the putting green if they are on a player`s line of play or putt or might assist him in his subsequent play of the hole. The distinction lies in the fact that old hole plugs and ball marks are easily identifiable as such, whereas it is impossible to differentiate between spike damage and other irregularities of surface on the putting green. Permitting the repair of spike marks would also inevitably lead to a slower place of play. Please note that proper etiquette recommends that damage to the putting green caused by golf shoe spikes be repaired on completion of the hole by all players, just as a player should fill up and smooth over all holes and footprints made by him before leaving a bunker. We feel that improved education and players` consideration for others rather than a change in the Rules of Golf is the proper solution to the problem.

That does make a certain sense to me... at first glance it does seem patently unfair to have a spike mark right in your way, but the downside of not knowing for sure what's a spike mark, which could lead to wholesale gardening on every hole, is a heck of a downside in my book.
TH

[Jeremy Glenn,]

1) Make cart paths an integral part of the course.

2) Reduce the use of Ground Under Repair.  It's not called "Ground Not Perfectly Maintained".

3) Reduce the number of clubs

4) Forbid yardage books and other distance markers (at least for tournaments)

5) Stipulate that a round played with a cart, unless you have a medical note, cannot be used for handicap purposes.

6) Eliminate bunker rakes.

7)  Eliminate any distinctions to different areas (ie greens, bunkers, hazards, etc...).  It should all be "though the green", if it's not OB.

Common sense should overide any anal-retentive bureaucratic interpretation of a rule.

9) Reduce the penalty for a lost ball.

10) Simplify the rules

[Jim_Kennedy]

Dan,
I would change the rules as they apply to bunkers. At present the only way to drop outside a bunker is to return to the area where the original shot was played, basically a stroke and distance penalty. The two other types of hazards, water and lateral water, have provisions to drop outside of them with a one stroke penalty.
Conventional wisdom says that players fears or dislikes of treacherous sand forms has led architects to sanitize these hazards to appease players and lower maintenance issues.
If players had the option to drop outside a bunker, with penalty, we might see more severe, less manicured bunkers.
Player's fears would be lessened, they have an alternate way out if unable to meet the challenge, and maintenance would not as big an issue as again, a player has a way out without going all the way back to the place they originally hit from.

In a matchplay only world this change would be unnecessary.  I think the stroke play world has had a detrimental effect on bunkering in general.  

[JakaB]

The best gamblers simply play by one rule..."If you touch or lose your ball before the green you do so under a penalty of stroke and distance."   no drops...no lateral or water hazards...just find it and hit it golf...the way it should be.

[Steve Lang]

divots, sand filled,  should be ground under repair

[Don_Mahaffey]

I would combine the lateral water hazard (red stakes or line) and water hazard (yellow) into one rule. The rules are hard enough to interpet and mark the course; I see no need for two types of water hazards.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Dan

All the ideas are good (except for the USGA shuckster Huckster's thoughts on spike marks).  But, you're initial idea is a real home run.  We talked about this club thingy a year or two ago here, but the way you expressed it makes me realise how deleterious the current rule on # of clubs is, to so many things that we hold dear, such as:

--speed of play
--golf as a sport that should be walked
--encouragement of creativity in the playing of golf
--simplicity

I just got back from playing 13 holes this late afternoon at my local course, in 80 minutes, carrying 7 clubs.  There is an incredible feeling of freedom once you realise that you DON'T have to choose a club and "dial it in," but can try to hit a 160 yard shot say, 3-4 different ways with 2-3 different clubs.

Your rule, in an amongst itself, would bring golf back to being a true sport and a sport of the people.  It is, however, far too logical and forward thinking to ever be adopted by the powers that be......

[THuckaby2]

The best gamblers simply play by one rule..."If you touch or lose your ball before the green you do so under a penalty of stroke and distance."   no drops...no lateral or water hazards...just find it and hit it golf...the way it should be.

That's a hell of a great way to play, at least for good players... but damn that would mean a LOT of provisionals for everyone else, don't ya think?

TH

[Scott_Burroughs]

Not being able to tap down some OTHER clod's spike marks has always been the stupidest rule in golf, but luckily the omnipresence of SoftSpikes has virtually negated that rule.

The 2nd worst rule in golf has (to me) always been the stroke-and-distance penalties (plural, it's a 2 shot penalty, essentially) on hitting O.B.  This formerly-rarely-levied penalty is now unfortunately used all the time, with the explosion of condo-canyon/housing development golf courses with O.B. lining every hole.  If the rule was altered (lateral rule, perhaps, as most who don't know the correct ruling do anyways), then it wouldn't be such a problem.  In match play it's even worse, where one O.B. shot basically eliminates a person from the hole.  With the eminent danger condo-canyon courses provide for residents and their homes, re-teeing it (probably a majority of O.B. shots) provides even more danger than if the person were hitting an iron (perhaps recovery) shot from point-of-entry.

The other biggest effect architecture-wise is that golf rounds are so painfully slow partially because of it (also because many don't hit provisional balls if O.B. is in doubt, if they know the rule in the first place).  I know if I played every round on a condo-canyon course, my handicap would rise by 2-3 strokes.

[THuckaby2]

Scott - the problem with NOT doing stroke and distance for OB is how do you define where to drop otherwise?  Is it where it went out, then to the side?  That makes for some VERY creative dropping...

Hell, I'd venture to say 95% of the golf world plays this way anyway... just in competitive situations, making it stroke and distance just settles any "issues" with finality.

TH

[Scott_Burroughs]

With regard to the USGA's reasoning on repairing ball marks vs. spike marks, I say that it's very easy to determine if an "imperfection" is a spike mark, because of today's pristine maintenance practices.  Virtually every spike-mark-looking imperfection is from a spike, if the course allows metal spikes.  You can see the hole in the green that the spike left.

Like I said in the last post, SoftSpikes have thankfully virtually eliminated the problem.

[JakaB]

Its all match play...I get maybe two lies a year I can't get a club on because it fell in a wash out or such...poor me..I just lose the hole and go on.   Going back to the tee would not be allowed and if you hit the ball in a water hazard or OB you simple drop and hit another....Lateral Hazard drops are just another form of institutional cheating that sickens me...anytime someone ask you if its "ok" to take a drop "here" its probably not...stroke and distance or loss of hole...simple, simple, simple.   Golf should be like your honeymoon just all out no holds barred f...ing....no ifs or whats just tee it up and drive it home.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Huck, point-of-entry, like I said, just like the determining point in all other rulings.  It's a "guestimate" when a ball flies into a pond or "Do Not Enter" area.

[THuckaby2]

Scott:  it just opens up a slippery slope for competitive purposes, as so many rules "improvements" do... you really don't think a competitor willing to "stretch" the definitions couldn't and wouldn't argue that ALL green imperfections are "spikemarks"?

No, the only way to make this foolproof this is to allow improvement of ALL green imperfections, which would lead to ridiculous gardening, slow play, creation of troughs to the hole for those so inclined, etc.

I ponder this a lot and I've really come to the conclusion the rules are there for very good reasons - most of which apply to competitive situations.

TH

[Dan Kelly]

Would you spike-markheads please take this to some other thread? Unless, of course, you're prepared to argue that changing the spike-mark rule answers my original challenge, which was:

You may change one Rule of Golf ... in the interestS [EMPHASIS ADDED] of:

(a) improving golf course architecture; AND [EMPHASIS ADDED]

(b) making golf a better game.

Thank you kindly.

P.S., to the USGA Huckster, in re: "the only way to make this foolproof this is to allow improvement of ALL green imperfections ... "

That's not the only way -- or the best way. Here's the best way: You could allow improvement of all green imperfections on one's intended line within one yard of the hole -- and you could have a mark conveniently inscribed one yard up from the bottom of the flagstick.

But that's for another thread.  

[David Wigler]

Steve Lang hit on my biggest complaint.  Divots should be GUR.  Since Steve already suggested that one, I will say that not only should I be able to get relief from a foot print in a sandtrap (Remember this is fluffy American Sand) but I should be able to get a Ranger to look at the footprint, identify the type of shoe, search the course until the Ass who didn't bother to rake is found and then either make him wear a scarlet letter on his golf clothing for the next six months, have him only be allowed to play behind the womens social league, or have him take 12 lashes with a whip!

[Scott_Burroughs]

Dan,

I did put my $.02 in in my first post.  Eliminate stroke-and-distance on O.B shots.  My opinion on effect on architecture was also there.

[Mike Benham]

"Down and Dirty" ... no marking and cleaning of the ball on the green ... this will speed up play and force the maintenance of the course to be more arid ...

[Paul Kelly]

I would change the rule that the hole has to be a certain diameter. I think it should be at least 3 times the size with slopes leading into it.

[A.G._Crockett]

Scott,
Agreed, and wholeheartedly.
To speed play, simplify the rules, reduce cheating, etc., etc.,
make everything relating to a lost or unplayable ball one stroke and two club lengths.  The only tweaking that would need to be done to treat backyard OB's like a lateral hazard would be to eliminate the option of playing from where the ball lies.  This doesn't strike me as difficult, and on many current courses with housing hard by the fairway, emminently more fair.  Stroke and distance for a white stake yard 20 feet off the fairway in a yard when I can see and retrieve the ball, and stroke/drop for hitting it in a lake?  Not equitable!

[John Foley]

Pretty suprised it hasn't been mentioned prior, but how about increasing the size of the hole.

It seems to me that w/ a bigger hole (lets say 12 inches) that the agressive nature of trying to hole a shot could improve on one's enjoyment (then again maybe it's just the basketball player in me).

Also, on the architecture side, wouldn't we be able to increase the slopes of the putting surfaces if the target size increased? Just think of the great swales & ridges you could put in.