[THuckaby2]

Dan - even your idea wouldn't stop cheaters... imagine the creative gardening and channel creation that could occur within 3 feet of the hole... that is pretty scary.

And hey, I thought all of this did relate to architecture... it's all golf... oh well, sorry.

TH

[Doug Siebert]

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.

I used to play some money games with guys who played this way.  It was a skins format, so if you lost your ball (1 minute to find it, and they'd time it), hit it into water, etc. you were out of the hole.  Couldn't touch your ball for any reason except to mark it when requested on the green, but no cleaning it.  No fixing of ball marks (and no using a lofted club on the green to go over them), no picking up leaves or sticks, no nothin'.  We'd play up to 8-somes and still finish under four hours.

I'd love to see fewer clubs allowed, but of all the ideas you could possibly come up with, that's the least likely to ever happen.  I'm surprised the clubmakers don't lobby the USGA and R&A to allow more clubs, so they can sell everyone on the idea they need an 8.5 iron for those in-between situations and to fill in those gaps between the 1-3-5-7 woods.  Six wedges, several putters for different situations.  Most courses would love the idea because you'd almost have to have a cart to lug around your giant bag of 30 clubs.

[SPDB1]

reintroduce the rule whereby you may not touch your ball until holed. that would of course, bring back the stymie.

Thus forcing many courses in America to move toward match play. The impact on architecture would be overwhelming.

[THuckaby2]

Now THIS is one I can get behind.  Pat Mucci's gonna want to adopt you, Sean.

The only issue is potential damage to greens but if they figured this out in the old days we can do so now.

Bring back the stymie!

TH

[Robert_Walker]

I would allow the 1st putt on the green to be made with the flagstick in the hole. This would speed up play.

I would not penalize a player when he gets hit by his own ball, unless it is accidental, and we all know when it is accidental.

[David_Elvins]

I like the idea of changing the OB rule.  I think a better way to go (and the way my group often plays) is to just get rid of OB.  Play the ball as it lies, off the road, off the condo patio, off the horse racing track, out of the cow paddock etc etc.  Bring back the real recovery shot.

[TEPaul]

TomH & Scott:

Probably the primary reason OB is stroke and distance is addressed in a little book called "The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf" by Richard Tufts, published in 1960 which is sort of the "logic Bible" the USGA refers to when they feel the need to answer complex rules questions with logic and explain the fundamental thinking of why rules are the way they are.

I'd quote the passage on OB stroke and distance from the book for you but I'm too lazy to go get it and find it.

But the logic behind OB stroke and distance is there are too many potential instances of a ball being either lost or OB where it's impossible to tell which it is (OB or lost) so out of necessity they combine the procedure and penalty for both!

Clearly they will not give up on stroke and distance for a ball lost since it clearly would be impossible to tell where to drop for some lost balls.

This necessary combining of procedures falls loosely into one of the "working principles" behind the rules of golf known as "like situations shall be treated alike".

[Philippe_Binette]

Easy, I guess playing with only 8 club will democratize the game and be more interesting.

But also this, a club should not have more than 45 degrees of loft. That will bring the ground game back a bit and make the contours of the greens tougher and will require more ability.

In this way, the course will have to allow more room to ground game.

By the way, try this, take a 4-iron and a couple of balls and go pratice around a green. You will see what is really creativity and touch.

[THuckaby2]

Thanks, Tom.  I'm with this reasoning 100%.  As I say above, there are very good reasons for these rules...

I'd still like to bring back the stymie though!

TH

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Phillipe

I love your codicil to the 8-club rule!  With the 45 degree maximum, the archies would have to get rid of a lot of those stupid trees and stupid bunkers!

Rich

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Dave

I am very much with you on the banning of handicaps (within the rules of golf--if clubs, associations, familes, etc. want to handicap their competitions, using whatever system they want, so be it).

I think this deserves it's own thread.  Go for i!

[JohnV]

As Tom Paul said the best explantion of why OB
and lost ball have to be replayed is in Richard Tuft's
book.  I'd recommend it for all those who want to change
rules.  But, if I could change one rule (actually it changes
the entire book), I would elminate Rule 3 - Stroke Play and
all other references to stroke play in the rules of golf.  
Lets just go back to match play all the time.  Think of all
the neat things that could be done architecturally if you
didn't have to worry about being "fair" to the stroke
play golfer.

As for fixing spike marks and divots being ground under
repair, get over it, play the ball as it lies and quit
whining like a tour player.

[THuckaby2]

Ban handicaps and my monthly tournament group ceases to exist. Man cannot live by NATO alone, a little friendly competition is very fun.  Unfortunately the vast majority of the golf world is at a skill level equal to 15 hdcp. or above, so think they'd enjoy playing 5's like me straight up all the time?

This also would put me out of a very fun job!

So bite your tongues, both of you.

TH

[A_Clay_Man]

I don't see how changing a rule would effect gCA.
 Tell me where I'm wrong.

[JohnV]

A_Clay_Man, suppose the USGA/R&A got rid of the water hazard rule.  All the course other than the green became through the green.  Therefore, if your ball goes in a lake, you have to play it just like a lost ball (stroke and distance the only option.)  Given that, would golf architects still be as likely to put water right in front of greens.  I don't see many non-water hazard jungles that close to play today.  I'm sure that water hazards would be well off the line of play than now.  That definitely would be a rule change that would affect architecture in my opinion.

[A.G._Crockett]

TEPaul,
Sorry to respond a day later on the OB rule, but help me out here:
I understand the difficulty with determining the status of the ball as to lost or OB.  How is that different than the rule concerning whether the ball is lost or in a hazard?  It comes down to lost unless there is reasonable evidence that its in the hazard.  How would the OB situation be different?

Additionally, to speed play by eliminating provisionals, why not either a one or a two-stroke penalty for the lost ball with a drop at an agreed point?  We have to agree on points of entry with hazards all the time;  why would a lost ball be any different?  In other words, play the whole world as a lateral hazard, sometimes minus the option to play from the designated area, and let's get on with it!

Wouldn't there be a benefit to the architect as well, since the boundaries of the property would be less meaningful to the play of his course?

[Doug Siebert]

Rich G,

Why do you think a 45 degree limit would mean limiting some trees and traps?  Pretty much nything you can hit over with a 60 degree wedge you can hit over with a 45 degree club, you just need to be a bit further behind it.  Or, of course, open the clubface.  Ditto for hitting out of traps.  My 60 degree wedge helps a bit out of deep Scottish pot bunkers, but the trick is mostly in making proper contact and not trying to do too much, rather than having more loft.  I couldn't imagine a 65 or 70 degree wedge would make playing from such spots any easier, to be sure.

A 45 degree limit would probably help a lot of higher handicappers who can never quite seem to get the hang of hitting sand wedges and lob wedges around the greens anyway, so long as they don't start emulating what the pros and better players would do and try to hit shots with a very wide open clubface.  Can you say 'shank'? :-)

[Jim_Kennedy]

JohnV,
Thank You for post #39.

[TEPaul]

A.G.

I think you're asking first how is the OB and Lost ball procedure different than how a lost ball and the Water hazard procedure is treated. I think you answered it yourself but basically there is no "reasonable evidence" procedure in the OB and Lost ball rule! There isn't because, no matter what the two are completely connected procedurally!

But I believe you're really asking why would a water hazard be treated differently procedurally in the rules? And that's a very good question indeed.

I do recall Tuft's speaking about that in some detail in his "Principles Behind the Rules of Golf" and concluding that the procedure that we have for it although not ideal is the best that can be found under the circumstances of golf (and I believe he even mentions architecture) today.

But you ask a very good and interesting question and since I probably can't relate the logic in the book well enough from memory I will go get it and quote the passage about water hazards and the procedure for them to you.

As to how much penalty to require for these things (penalty strokes--ie, one or two shots) the book and the Rules of golf work very much on another fundamental "principle" in that regard (and in combination with "like situations shall be treated alike") and that is;

"The penalty must not be less than the advantage that the player could derive from the respective rules violation". (in this case forget about the words "rules violation" the principle and concept is the same).

All of this is one entire chapter in Tuft's book and if you have it please refer to pages 73-78. I'd hate to have to print it all but I guess I can if this won't do.

I should remind you that some of this chapter dealt with an experiment of allowing the player to play distance only (without a penalty stroke) which the USGA adopted experimentally in 1960 and then dropped about a year later!

[TEPaul]

A.G.

I doubt this will help much but when you start mentioning things like. "...for the lost ball with a drop at an agreed point", the rules bodies start to take exception probably because of their fundamental thoughts about these things like;

"One of the great features of golf is that one stroke leads to the next and when it becomes easier to recover from adversity by the use of the Rule book (ie agreed points) than a golf club, the game will have lost all virtue."

And also the procedure of reasonable evidence is a very strict one to establish that fact!

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Doug

I was being a little facetious and a lot dishonest.  In fact, you would have to pry my old Ram/Watson 60 degree lob wedge out of my cold dying hands........

I can say "s***k," but not in polite company.  They tend to prefer the far less onomatapoetic "hosel."

[Pete_Pittock]

Lighten the ball and keep the diameter at 1.68 inches. This would bring back the floater, cut distance and increase the factor of wind. You'd also have to cut the greens higher to keep the ball from blowing away easily.
I also agree with doing away with stroke play and limiting the number of clubs.

[Dan King]

Elliminate the whole damn rule book and...

Keep your bluidy hands off the golf ball and leave the course as you found it.

Dan King
dking@danking.org

"After Pythagoras science turned to magic, naethi'n but superficial powers. And we rely upon our instruments instead o' oursel's. Tha' is why Seamus says we only need a baffin' spoon like his to play around o' gowf -- If we would e'er ken the world from the inside."
 --Shivas Irons (Golf in the Kingdom)

[JohnV]

One of the key points that Tufts makes as to why a water hazard is treated differently is : "The water hazard exception could be justified from the standpoint that water hazards area regular playing feature of the course and usually very much more in the line of normal play than out of bounds or conditions that lead to lost and unplayable balls."

Another great quote is: "One of the great features of golf is that one stroke pleads to the next and when it becomes easier to recover from adversity by the use of the Rule book than a golf club, the game will have lost all virtue."  This is a prime justification for the stroke and distance penalty vs a pure distance or stroke penalty for a very poorly played shot that goes out of bounds or is lost.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

"...one stroke pleads to the next...."

Tyop of the Year!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()