News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Ian Andrew

  • Karma: +0/-0
Tradition vs. Evolution in Golf
« on: March 22, 2013, 03:44:51 PM »
The Anchor Ban debate has my full attention, but not for the reason you might think.

It’s not the ban itself, but rather how people are choosing to position themselves in the debate. You see I think golf is coming to a crossroads where we are currently choosing between two paths where neither is wrong. One leads to zero growth but holds onto our traditions and the other leads to more participation under a more relaxed approach. This has nothing at all to do with the Anchor Ban debate at all, but does have everything to do with the conflict between traditionalists and those who clearly want to change the game to fit the times.

I get that the people who support the ban believe they are protecting the integrity of the game. I have no issue with their stance because I think it’s founded on an “honest” view that I can easily respect. I get that their view is based upon what constitutes “the stroke” and while I may argue their interpretation of what the club does I do freely acknowledge that it’s an advantage for people who cannot make a smooth stroke to use an anchored putter.

That’s not my issue.

Here’s my issue, their secondary insistence that everyone playing under the same rules is the essence of the game is a problem for me. There is no need or justification for the average player to play by the exact same rules as a PGA Tour Golf Professional or an amateur in competition. There is no need for us to play with their same equipment either. A formal disconnect outside competition will not harm any level of competitive golf. Considering that “difficulty” and “time” are two of the three biggest problems in retaining players, with “cost” being the third, I can’t see why we insist upon one set of common rules that do contribute to (slowing) the speed of play.

Playing in competition is painfully slow.

What’s wrong with a set of modified “non-competition” rules designed to speed the game up. Most of us non-competitive players don’t actually follow the rules when it comes to lost balls, out of bounds or putting, but why not acknowledge this and move on with a program designed to speed up the game. Working from the same premise why not allow the putter on this level to make the game easier and speed up play on the greens. I don’t see why you need to ban a putter from that group when you can simply ban it from competition. Let’s separate competitive play from non-competitive play and while we’re at it return to 10 simple rules for the non-competitive player.

I plan to conform to whatever the ruling is.

But if I return to having serious issues with the yips in the future I will simply play far less golf. When I had the yips, I don’t play for months at a time because outside of an anchored putter I have not been able to find an answer that works for more than a few holes. I was too frustrated by the game to enjoy it, so I played other sports and did other things with my kids. Traditionalists, if that’s what you want, fine, have at it. But I’m not the only one who has something else to do with my time.

The fact that the USGA is trying everything BUT rolling back the ball is my personal frustration as a designer. The issues of land required, increased safety issues and a disconnection between levels of play, supersede the fact that they are making great architecture less relevant.  I’ve lost faith in ruling bodies for not addressing this even from pure economics of the game. I now question whether it’s the traditions that are actually holding back the game. Perhaps some female members at the R&A would offer a new perspective...

So coming back to my first paragraph it’s time to choose where we are heading.

If you care about "growing the game", you’re going to have to ease the traditions of the game. This is not about a putter. And if you think you can grow the game within the bounds of tradition your either older or not looking around at the evolution of other sports. This is about finding a way to bring a next generation to the game and retain the current generation who has more options for their time and more family related responsibilities than the previous generation. The disconnect between generations will become a massive looming problem that golf will have to deal with.

I’m an example of that player you are trying to retain.

I will always play golf, but there is a reason I have not joined a club. I still prefer public golf with my kids because they are accepting of how my kids want to dress (shirts untucked and fedoras), how they want to play (fast and with a few second chances) and the concept of “fun” first. Conformity is required by the traditionalists (Play in order, no jeans, finish your putts) and that eventually becomes an issue in an era of self-expression. The latest generations are defined by people who don’t share the same values (work or play) or the same desire to be part of something. They are going to want to play the sport on their own terms. The question is whether golf is ready for that. If not, they will find something else to play or do.

With every golf development bubble, the end was unexpected and brutal....

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tradition vs. Evolution in Golf
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2013, 04:17:17 PM »
Ian -

It seems to me the very tradition of the game is, in fact, evolution. That is what too many so-called "traditionalists" choose to ignore.

DT
« Last Edit: March 22, 2013, 04:31:59 PM by David_Tepper »

Colin Macqueen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tradition vs. Evolution in Golf
« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2013, 04:31:37 PM »
Ian,
Your take has so much validity. Much as it brings tears to my eyes I am coming round to the fact that the game has to loosen the reins if it wants to attract the teenagers of today as tomorrows players. I personally enjoy the "ritual" of getting into golf attire (the only time I use an iron is Saturday morn!) but this cuts no ice with callow youth. As to fedoras ....... Well that Kyle Henderson has  a lot to answer for!

Cheers Colin
"Golf, thou art a gentle sprite, I owe thee much"
The Hielander

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tradition vs. Evolution in Golf
« Reply #3 on: March 22, 2013, 04:33:19 PM »
"As to fedoras"

Colin M. -

Didn't Sam Snead play in a fedora? ;)

DT

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tradition vs. Evolution in Golf
« Reply #4 on: March 22, 2013, 04:46:30 PM »
Ian,

I think the key phrase in your post was this,

Most of us non-competitive players don’t actually follow the rules when it comes to lost balls, out of bounds or putting, but why not acknowledge this


And I'm not sure they the Power That Be will not acknowledge this.  While these facts are being ignored, the game is being bifurcated (at a minimum) on a more grass roots level.  From gimmies, to mulligans, to hickories...and lots more.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tradition vs. Evolution in Golf
« Reply #5 on: March 22, 2013, 04:53:15 PM »
I only partially agree.

I think in essence we have to loosen only those traditions that don't quintessentially change the game we are playing. Look how to grow the game in today's society but remember always what the base enjoyment of the game was for those before us.

If letting people wear denim or use anchored putters genuinely means more will play, then go for it.... Personally, I'd be more focused on reducing cost and time within the parameters that we already play. I think that will have a bigger effect.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tradition vs. Evolution in Golf
« Reply #6 on: March 22, 2013, 05:03:47 PM »
... I don’t see why you need to ban a putter from that group when you can simply ban it from competition. ...

It seems to me that is exactly what they are doing. To compete, you need to have a handicap. To have a handicap, you need to follow the rules including the ban. Otherwise, who cares what you putt with. They are not going to confiscate belly putters when you arrive at the course for a casual game.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Ian Andrew

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tradition vs. Evolution in Golf
« Reply #7 on: March 22, 2013, 06:12:38 PM »
Why are North Americans the only ones who require every round to be carded, played under the rules and turned in for handicapping purposes? (Canadian only in recent times fell in line with the US) Would we not be much better off if Medal Days were played once a month + tournament rounds were added to establish a handicap instead? It certain "begins" to address the speed of play problem.
With every golf development bubble, the end was unexpected and brutal....

Rich Goodale

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tradition vs. Evolution in Golf
« Reply #8 on: March 22, 2013, 06:53:54 PM »
Why are North Americans the only ones who require every round to be carded, played under the rules and turned in for handicapping purposes? (Canadian only in recent times fell in line with the US) Would we not be much better off if Medal Days were played once a month + tournament rounds were added to establish a handicap instead? It certain "begins" to address the speed of play problem.

Bingo!
Life is good.

Any afterlife is unlikely and/or dodgy.

Jean-Paul Parodi

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tradition vs. Evolution in Golf
« Reply #9 on: March 22, 2013, 06:57:43 PM »
Dave,

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

Quote
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).
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Peter Pallotta

Re: Tradition vs. Evolution in Golf
« Reply #10 on: March 22, 2013, 07:45:45 PM »
Ian - What would the greater gift we could give to future generations? Would it be to:

a) teach them how to enjoy and eventually love the peaceful, quiet, measured pace of the game of golf, and to help them learn the joys of unplugging (from incessant technology) and unwinding (from hyper consumerism) and slowing down (from modern life's hectic pace) and focusing instead on the subtle nuances and challenges of a great golf swing or beautifully designed golf hole....or would it be to

b) find ways to change the game of golf and its essential nature -- i.e. a walk in the park, with friends -- in ways both modest and dramatic so as to (hopefully) make it more appealing, acceptable and immediately gratifying to a generation that wants to stay plugged in and is used to moving fast from birth and can access any art or music or learning instantly on their IPads?

In other words: is it better to change the game/rules or to encourage people to change themselves?

Peter
« Last Edit: March 22, 2013, 07:49:02 PM by PPallotta »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Tradition vs. Evolution in Golf
« Reply #11 on: March 22, 2013, 09:24:21 PM »
... I don’t see why you need to ban a putter from that group when you can simply ban it from competition. ...

It seems to me that is exactly what they are doing. To compete, you need to have a handicap. To have a handicap, you need to follow the rules including the ban. Otherwise, who cares what you putt with. They are not going to confiscate belly putters when you arrive at the course for a casual game.


I had never thought of it this way, but GJ Bailey is right.

In fact, there's really nothing preventing most people from keeping their long putter and posting their scores with it.  It will only be an issue when they are playing a match against someone who objects to them using a long putter because it's against the Rules.  But if their buddy also wants to use a long putter, or doesn't care, no one's the wiser.

Michael Moore

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tradition vs. Evolution in Golf
« Reply #12 on: March 22, 2013, 10:33:36 PM »
In fact, there's really nothing preventing most people from keeping their long putter and posting their scores with it.

At Riverside Municipal everyone knows everyone and there are two tournaments every weekend. People who do not observe the rules and/or fail to return cards are shunned and their behavior is scrutinized by the pro shop and the handicap chairman. Peer review is alive and well.
Metaphor is social and shares the table with the objects it intertwines and the attitudes it reconciles. Opinion, like the Michelin inspector, dines alone. - Adam Gopnik, The Table Comes First

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tradition vs. Evolution in Golf
« Reply #13 on: March 22, 2013, 10:33:49 PM »
GJ is right on.  This change in the rules only matters if you CHOOSE to play by the rules.  Outside of perhaps a few stuffy clubs no one stops you from playing golf by whatever rules you want, so long as you don't do anything to negatively impact the course or the others you are sharing it with.  Does anyone stop you from taking gimmes, making up your own rules on how to handle lost balls and OB that don't involve going back to the teebox, or putting croquet style like Sam Snead used to?  No, they don't!

Everything needs to have rules, but what set of rules you choose to play by is up to you.  You can play by the USGA rules, or by the rules you and your friends agree upon, or rules that you make for yourself and are up to only you as to how stringently to apply them.  How many of you have played Monopoly under rules were you got some money when you land on Free Parking?  If so, you weren't following the rules to the game, but most people play it that way.  If everyone playing the game agrees to play under those rules, Parker Brothers doesn't send out people to stop you.  It only matters if you wanted to play in some sort of Monopoly tournament - then you'd need to play under whatever rules they set forth (official or not)

One can claim that participation in golf will drop because those who have the yips that are only helped by a long putter won't play if they can't use the long putter.  What about the guys who have yips that are helped by nothing aside from a generous three foot gimme range?  Should that be enshrined into the rules of golf to gain their participation as well?  If I had a half dozen mulligans a round I'd probably benefit to the tune of 10+ shots in every third round or so, that might make me play more, maybe we should add that to the rules too?
My hovercraft is full of eels.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tradition vs. Evolution in Golf
« Reply #14 on: March 23, 2013, 05:05:54 AM »
I will be curious to see what happens in GB&I with this rule change.  On the one hand, there is a lot of matchplay golf among mates.  On the other hand, I don't tend to see the "big" rules ignored.  People won't care much if a guy rolls his ball under winter rules without marking, but will they be okay with a guy using a dodgy club?  I suspect most GB&Iers will enforce the rule even for friendlies (I won't care so the only peep out of me will be taking the mickey).  I suspect in the US the trend may be reversed simply because so many players don't have handicaps.  They are making it up as they go along so why not ignore rules about clubs?  For instance, I bet tons of guys were still hitting the illegal drivers some years back - I bet there are still a lot of these drivers still being used now.  Some probably didn't even know their driver was illegal.  Mind you, the generations of drivers which came later are at least as good so perhaps the ban should be lifted.  Mind you twice, the illegal drivers were hard to spot compared to these putters - tee hee.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024:Winterfield, Alnmouth, Camden, Palmetto Bluff Crossroads Course, Colleton River Dye Course  & Old Barnwell

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tradition vs. Evolution in Golf
« Reply #15 on: March 23, 2013, 07:19:28 AM »
Gringo,

I disagree.  While in practice many U.S. duffers don't strictly adhere to, or even fully understand, the rules of golf, they like to think they do.  So while many folks may not always take stroke and distance, play out of every divot or hole every putt in posted medal rounds, they will not want to be seen as blatantly breaking a rule that they're aware of.  i.e. we may cheat, but we like to think that it's under the radar...
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tradition vs. Evolution in Golf
« Reply #16 on: March 23, 2013, 07:29:28 AM »
Ian,

Couple of points:

1.  I don't see how the long putter speeds up play.  It's heavier and more cumbersome to carry and last I checked you could still plumb bob with it.

2.  Having monthly medals and playing primarily match play would be a huge improvement in the North American psyche.

3.  There are clubs that focus more on fun and a relaxed atmosphere than stiffness.

4.  Getting my kid to put on a collared shirt and a pair of khakis over basketball shorts and a t-shirt once in a while isn't necessarily a bad thing IMO.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2013, 12:23:04 PM by Jud T »
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tradition vs. Evolution in Golf
« Reply #17 on: March 23, 2013, 08:00:43 AM »
Was tennis better when rackets were made of wood and all the players dressed in white? Was motor racing better when the cars had narrow tyres and the engines were at the front end and the drivers overalls were plain coloured and unlogo'd? Were soccer and rugby better with a heavy ball made of leather and the players didn't have tattoo's? Things change in sport, and in society and in life in general, they evolve.

However, one of the nicest things about golf is standard’s.

Call me a fuddy duddy if you like, although I ain't that old, but that the vast majority of golf Clubs – note the capital ‘C’ in the word ‘Clubs’, as I’m referring to golf ‘Clubs’ not to golf Facilities like pay-n-play and muni’s - and their members and member based competitive events adhere to standards of dress, behaviour, politeness, rules and regulations etc is one of the great things about golf. I think we golfers call it etiquette and I struggle to think of few other aspects of sport, maybe even life these days, where etiquette still holds any degree of sway.

The world outside the golf course is a busy place but a golf course, especially at a private ‘Club’ is normally a little area of relative peace and quiet away from the hussle and bussle and hurley-burley of everyday life. A refuge if you like, a peaceful and tranquil and maybe even serene refuge and this aspect of golf has a powerful attraction to many people and although things in sport and in life and in society do constantly move on and evolve every day, at least on the course or at the golf ‘Club’ they evolve at a slower pace. 

Jud has a lovely line when he says that "Getting my kid to put on a collared shirt and a pair of khakis over basketball shorts and a t-shirt once in a while isn't necessarily a bad thing..." and whilst youngsters (and others!) may want to push the boundaries a bit and dress up like Ronald McDonald or look like the Village People, one day these same youngsters will be older and they’ll probably want peace and calm and tranquillity and serenity in their golfing lives and will (hopefully) be grateful that their forefathers (ie us) didn’t give up on the standards and etiquette in golf in the name of alleged progress and evolution. And if you're really serious about helping youngsters get into golf build the little kids a short pitch-n-putt course and then when they get good enough/big enough/mature enough let them onto the big course, oh and while your at it teach them the importance of standards in dress, behaviour, politeness, rules and regulations etc.

As to equipment evolution and use, well if you want to play social golf or buddies fun golf and use a long or belly putter does it really matter if your not causing hassle to others? In this respect perhaps it might help if some parts of the world moved away from the 'post every card' approach to handicapping, but I guess that's another debate for another day. But if you want to play competitive golf, then stick to the rules and regulations. The key aspect to me is the definition of the rules and regulations and very crucially, who makes and polices them.

In Ian's original post he say’s "This has nothing at all to do with the Anchor Ban debate at all, but does have everything to do with the conflict between traditionalists and those who clearly want to change the game to fit the times."

I would suggest that in the long and belly putter debate "those who clearly want to change the game to fit the times" become, if not regulated by a body or bodies with sufficient strength and determination, ie guts, "those who clearly want to change the game to fit themselves", whether these be players or manufacturers. This aspect IMO is what the long and belly putter debate has become, the power of the manufacturers, their £$£$, their advertising and the exposure of those players they pay to play their products and who become media made roll models.

Whether the regulators have the strength and determination to stand up to them and the ambulance chasers who advise them will be key, not just in the long and belly putter debate, but in other issues that will arise in the game in the future.

To close on a lighter aspect, it did amuse me recently to see a player attempting to putt on an adjacent green with a putter anchored firmly against his chin in a high wind. So strong was the wind that he couldn’t control the club properly and thus managed to miss his ball completely and hit his foot with the clubhead! It’s also difficult not to chuckle when it’s pouring down with rain and a belly putter user is try to keep his hands dry while the water runs down from his waterproof jacket onto the clubs elongated grip that is firmly stuck into his belly.

Off to find the hickories now and play a few holes with my Flat Earth Society friends at Luddites Golf Club and afterwards debate in the bar King Knut’s inability to hold back the tide.

All the best

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tradition vs. Evolution in Golf
« Reply #18 on: March 23, 2013, 08:05:23 AM »
I wonder if the issue is going to become more and more diverse and complicated when we try to sort out;  who is the game being administered for and by which body?

We seem to have some sort of consensus that there are different games being played out there every day.  There are competitive events from organized clubs, leagues, local tournaments, to various amateur entities like schools, or state or regional golf organizations sponsoring the competitive events.  We have various choices of terms of competition from medal play tournaments, to match play, to scrambles, team events, and various other manner of formats.  And for the most part, we look to the USGA and R&A to give us rules under which to play and how to administrate the game.

Yet, there are areas of administrative authority that cross a line and are not 'rules' per se, but rather directive or trend setting entities that have a tension with the rule making authorities, and pit this notion of traditional rules with trends and popular custom and practice.  As the values, needs and wants of a population with changing customs try to fit their recreation into the pursuit of a game, they get values, practice, custom, tradition and goals mixed up because what is popular, expedient, conforming to pleasurable recreation conflicts with traditions and rules.  Popular recreation includes friendly competition and wagering, and all the little customs we golfers engage - and our personal goals of what we want to get out of the game conflict with the requirement of having a fixed and fair set of rules and administration for honest 'real' competition.  And, "real" competition can be as low as the 5th flight of the Bushwood member-guest tournament, to the professional Opens and Majors.  

And to top off the tension and complexity of administering the game for all concerned, from commercial interests of equipment to commercial interests of golf architecture and maintenance of the fields of play, we have an evolving set of parameters that intersect the dimensions of the game from length of B&I technology to its effect on demands for more land in designing the field of play.

The answer of whether 'tradition' or 'evolution' will have the preeminent effect on the future of the game is:   neither.  Access and exposure to the game via affordability and availability of resources will have the preeminent effect on the growth of the game.  The question of tradition and evolution of the game will become a tension of an obscure cult of golfer's committees of elite administrators catering to a dwindling number of players, if more people don't pursue it because they can and want to participate because it is available and affordable and enjoyable as a recreational activity that conforms to the societies lifestyle.
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

David Harshbarger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tradition vs. Evolution in Golf
« Reply #19 on: March 23, 2013, 08:50:27 AM »
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.
The trouble with modern equipment and distance—and I don't see anyone pointing this out—is that it robs from the player's experience. - Mickey Wright

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tradition vs. Evolution in Golf
« Reply #20 on: March 23, 2013, 05:08:04 PM »
Ian - What would the greater gift we could give to future generations? Would it be to:

a) teach them how to enjoy and eventually love the peaceful, quiet, measured pace of the game of golf, and to help them learn the joys of unplugging (from incessant technology) and unwinding (from hyper consumerism) and slowing down (from modern life's hectic pace) and focusing instead on the subtle nuances and challenges of a great golf swing or beautifully designed golf hole....or would it be to

b) find ways to change the game of golf and its essential nature -- i.e. a walk in the park, with friends -- in ways both modest and dramatic so as to (hopefully) make it more appealing, acceptable and immediately gratifying to a generation that wants to stay plugged in and is used to moving fast from birth and can access any art or music or learning instantly on their IPads?

In other words: is it better to change the game/rules or to encourage people to change themselves?

Peter

Peter,

I've been thinking about this ever since you wrote it.

First off, I'm in this camp.  I play golf to relax and unwind.  

However, I think a large portion of golfers believe that competition is what is at the heart of the game.  They play to compete and win.


I believe this is a big reason for the issues with the anchoring ban.  I don't care one iota about it.  But I don't play to compete and win.  I play to get in a good walk, exercise, unwind, and enjoy.  So, if using an anchored putter is the way you like to putt, great.  If you don't like it, fine.  You want to use hickories, okay.  You want to use non-conforming equipment...go for it.  You want to ride, okay.  You want to take a mulligan, fine by me.  I really don't care...because I'm simply enjoying being outdoors and enjoying the mental stimlulation of the game and getting in some mild, and much needed, exercise.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tradition vs. Evolution in Golf
« Reply #21 on: March 23, 2013, 06:55:02 PM »
Dave;  Talk about regurgitation!  We understand your argument that limitations on the manner of striking is a radical deviation from the spirit and history of the rules.  You have made it persistently in numerous threads.  I suspect you have convinced those who will be convinced.  But the interesting question that you do not face, and the one that is obliquely raised by this thread, is  there a reason or a circumstance for making such a rule?  I am not asking for a referendum on the "anchored putter" rule.  Rather, I am considering the function of the rules making process and the role of rules making bodies.  In so doing I return to some familiar themes and if I am guilty of repetition, I apologize.

Sports and games need rules if competition is involved.  Those who suggest that the recreational golfer can and does play anyway he or she chooses are correct.  A lot of golf played everyday is played with a modified set of rules accepted by those in their foursome but only somewhat related to those issued by the R&A and the USGA.  That state of affairs is fine until they choose to play in some form of a sanctioned event.

But absent the rules, real competition is impossible.  The rules influence even the non-observer because most look to the "better" players as examples of how to play.  As players improve and think about competition they learn the rules.  The rules can influence how we play in many respects; equipment, pace of play and even in terms of technique.

All games evolve, some more than others.  I suspect that when soccer was in its infancy, the offside rule was unknown.  When kids begin to  play pick up soccer that rule is ignored.  But its utility is obvious.  American football has evolved from the day of the flying wedge and continues to do so.  Baseball started with a mound some 50 feet from the batter and underhand pitching.  Basketball eliminated the center jump after each basket, prohibited goaltending, improved the ball etc.  The changes in tennis equipment  have been noted.

The question in each case is, "when has the game matured so that further change should be limited?"  Some sports have done better than others.  Baseball, by embracing the wooden bat, kept its playing fields relevant.  While it tinkers around the edges, its basic rules remain the same and it works.  I believe tennis missed the boat when it failed to regulate rackets.  While the game is somewhat easier for the average player, the competitive game is far less interesting than it was in the time of wood or the early days of metal.  The variety of styles and play has been reduced because the new rackets allow a player to generate greater topspin with a greater margin of error.  Less net rushing and more tedious backcourt rallies ensue.  Perhaps there was a time when the big serve was too dominant but the counter has come way too far.  Read Talbert & Olds l "The Game of Singles In Tennis" , a seminal analysis of tactics, today, and the differences are stark.  I note in passing that participation in tennis has not boomed as a result of the racket technology.

Golf is an even more difficult problem because the playing fields are not uniform and the game is more free form.  The question is, has the game become mature so that, even if we never regulated areas before, it makes sense to regulate them now.  Even more important, do we need stricter regulations to preserve the game and keep it from evolving into something that is not sustainable.

Clearly many of us believe that the distance generated by the new balls in combination with modern drivers has hurt the game.  This is not because the average player  has benefitted too much.  It is because we look to the best players and  for them, the scoring aspect has become too easy unless courses are lengthened and toughened.  As others inevitably follow, the game becomes more expensive, longer too play and less enjoyable.  We can say "ignore them" but the trends are clear; people follow, courses get longer, maintenance gets more expensive, play gets slower.  Too argue otherwise makes us modern King Canutes.

As for manner of play, one  can say  its has always been true that a player can do anything so long as he is striking the ball, an interesting definitional argument to avoid the  pool cue precedent.  Then there is "anything but straddling" to avoid the Snead rule.   The question remains, will there come a point when it makes sense to create some standards and enforce them as a means of preserving the game?  That is a separate question from whether a particular rule works.   I think the R&A erred when it banned the center shafted putter (later repealed).  That did not mean that the R&A should not regulate equipment going forward.   Similarly, the wisdom of the anchoring ban should be considered separate and apart from the greater question concerning whether it is time to stabilize golf in terms of equipment and/or technique.    Put me in the camp of significantly greater equipment regulation and a more cautious approach to other rule changes.  But I believe the game  has  reached a level  of  maturity that should be respected.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2013, 07:10:59 PM by SL_Solow »

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tradition vs. Evolution in Golf
« Reply #22 on: March 23, 2013, 09:17:40 PM »
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?
My hovercraft is full of eels.

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tradition vs. Evolution in Golf
« Reply #23 on: March 23, 2013, 10:23:08 PM »
Schmidtty,  Stick to what you know.  Two handed shots in tennis go back to the beginning.  An easy example, John Bromwich of Australia was a dominant doubles player and Davis Cup star in the 30's, 40's and early 50's.  He also won 2 Aussie singles titles all with a 2 handed forehand.  More recently but before Connors, Frew McMillan was ranked first if the world in doubles playing 2 handed strokes off both sides.  So the analogy fails.

I concede you asked whether the ruling bodies should govern the manner of making a stroke.  I do not concede that it hasn't been done before.  Finally, I suggest that it is more of an open question than you are willing to consider.    You ask the question but you have already made up your mind.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2013, 09:10:21 AM by SL_Solow »

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tradition vs. Evolution in Golf
« Reply #24 on: March 23, 2013, 10:54:36 PM »
This whole issue could be over in the blink of an eye in the if the PGA Tour banned anchoring in their competitions. It would stop a few hundred players from using the technique while allowing many millions of others to continue employing it.

This idea probably won't work as it's just too simple and the Tour players are mainly thinking about themselves and their earnings. Too bad.  :P 
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back