Golf Could Benefit from Two Sets of Rules

by Ryan Ballengee on Mar 4, 2009 10:28 AM EST Comment 24 comments

There's been a debate going on in the equipment community about whether we should bifurcate the rules of golf. In other words, there is an argument being made that there should be rules separate for professionals and amateurs.

I weighed in last year in support of bifurcation, saying that the USGA's grooves proposal was an attempted step at bifurcating a small part of the game.

Golf Digest's Mike Johnson found recent news to suggest that perhaps we should start talking about the idea again. Later in the piece, Johnson raises the point that we have both made before - golf already has two de facto sets of rules.

As of now, there is no clear-cut answer on which would be better for the game, although the USGA has done a study in which "the high majority" of everyday players prefer a single set of rules. Yet we all seem content to sit on the sidelines of this debate, as if it is the third rail of golf. If we are being honest with ourselves, we already are playing with two sets of rules when it comes to posting scores. Recreational players use distance-measuring devices, for example, and then there is the pending, staggered roll out of the new groove rule, which is an indication of the USGA's willingness to institute different parameters for different levels of players.

As a player of golf, what do you think? Do you think that you play a different game than the pros now? Would it be discouraging if it was made more official?

0 recs | Comment 24 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

you would think so...

…but the manufacturers disagree…even though they already make clubs and balls for Joe 20 Handicapper. Ball manufacturers count on the retail sales of the balls the pros use to keep them going.

I don’t have much of an objection to limiting the flight of balls or grooves or head size of the driver…or even outlawing the belly and broomstick putters for the PGA Tour. It works for baseball and the metal bats used through college, then wood bats in the pros.

They argued the same thing in tennis when the men’s game got so boring with 2 hit points. Some people suggested that the men go back to wood rackets or some form of small racket with less power, but manufacturers wanted people to buy the new technology, and they knew that the recreational player would buy what the pros use instead of something that fit their game best.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Mar 4, 2009 10:54 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

debate

Since golf is played in places other than the US and there are regulatory bodies other than the USGA and there are professional tours other than the PGA, I wonder what the R&A and the European Tour (for example) have to say about it? What about Asian Tours? What about all the women’s tours. Are there other regulatory bodies that might have a valid opinion?

I’m all for having a debate. But that debate can’t just be between a few corporations and the USGA.

Truth has a well-known liberal bias.

by dianemarie on Mar 4, 2009 10:55 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

USGA and R&A

Thanks to the Callaway Big Bertha ERC driver some 15 years ago, the R&A and USGA decided to streamline the rules so there would be one set of rules. Most of the world went along with the R&A on club performance (the “trampoline effect”) and the USGA stood alone against the ultra high MOI drivers. After that, the two ruling bodies got together so there would be one set of rules.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Mar 4, 2009 11:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Much longer

The R&A and USGA have been issuing joint rules every four years since 1952.

by Double Eagle on Mar 4, 2009 11:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

apparently not

otherwise, the Callaway driver wouldn’t have been an issue.

the Rules of Play have been consistently the same, but the views on technology differed when things started growing and growing.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Mar 4, 2009 12:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It was an issue...

…because MOI was unaddressed in the equipment regulations at the time. When new things come up, they can go for a few years before being hashed out by the governing bodies.

by Double Eagle on Mar 4, 2009 12:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

and therefore...

…the difference led to two sets of decisions for the rule books…for a while

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Mar 4, 2009 12:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, but...

The ERC situation did not trigger the USGA and R&A to streamline the rules into a single set. They were doing it for decades. It just fell between the four-year sessions so each body made a temporary (and unfortunately conflicting) ruling until an agreed-upon rule was made.

by Double Eagle on Mar 4, 2009 12:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

we're mostly agreeing...

…the rules of play were the same – it was the issue that created problems with international play.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Mar 4, 2009 12:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually...

…the equipment rules may be decided in a different process than the Rules of Golf, now that I think about it.

Did the smaller ball ever go by the wayside in Europe? Doesn’t the R&A still have a smaller minimum size on the ball? Even if not, I know it was like that for years, much longer than the time between rules pow-wows.

So, I think you’re right that equipment specific issues may have sparked a new movement toward unified equipment rules.

by Double Eagle on Mar 4, 2009 12:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

the smaller ball rule...

…is gone since the ball is not in use anymore. Again…consistency in manufacture, and consistency for competition with golf being played more globally.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Mar 4, 2009 12:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah, the small ball thing is done. I think that ended in the very late 90s or early 2000s.

by Ryan Ballengee on Mar 4, 2009 12:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree. To this point, no professional golf tour has said that they would entertain issuing their own addendum to the Rules of Golf. The PGA Tour tried that in the 80s, got sued, and cowered down. I imagine that’s why the Tours today won’t do it. I think that the principle other body in this is the R&A. Not sure what Peter Dawson thinks of the idea.

by Ryan Ballengee on Mar 4, 2009 11:00 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think modifications would help

I don’t necessarily think there should be bifurcation, but I think that there should be allowance for local rules to override a certain few rules. For instance, for OB, stroke and distance just isn’t feasible on busy public courses. The rules should allow for a local rule playing it like a hazard, with a 2-stroke penalty (to also punish for the distance part of the normal penalty).

You could do something similar with lost balls, except instead of using the spot where the ball crossed OB, you’d have to use the spot where the ball was last seen. It’s not perfect, but stroke and distance on busy courses is a big problem.

As for equipment, I don’t think it’s that big a deal to use the same rules for everyone. I mean, the extra stopping power that the banned grooves provide hardly makes a difference to the weekend duffers anyway. Their club head speed is so much slower and their angle of attack is not optimal, so how much does the extra stopping power actually translate anyway? We’re basically rolling back the clock to a time when weekend players weren’t suffering any worse with the older grooves.

by Double Eagle on Mar 4, 2009 11:24 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I’m curious to see the real impact of grooves on amateurs. We won’t know for another 10 years probably – really, even longer (2024). But, we could allow amateurs to use GPS devices in competition, for example. Or, this would open up the door to limit the golf ball for professionals and not amateurs.

by Ryan Ballengee on Mar 4, 2009 11:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd be really surprised...

…if there was that much of an effect. How many weekend players struggle to stop the ball even with square grooves? Many lack the club head speed and angle of attack required to make optimal use of any groove configuration.

I also think we’re going to find out the effect much sooner. While there are certainly players that use the same clubs for decades, a lot of players turn over their equipment regularly. And besides, those players who play regularly but who keep the same clubs for a long, long time – they pretty much wear out their grooves within a few years and destroy their effectiveness anyway. Those players would actually get a boost by getting new wedges with V-shaped grooves.

by Double Eagle on Mar 4, 2009 11:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

GPS

The USGA does allow GPS range finders in competition if everyone has access to the same information. Obviously you won’t see them at the high profile championships, but they do get used at local tournaments.

Truth has a well-known liberal bias.

by dianemarie on Mar 4, 2009 12:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's not US they're trying to protect...

…they are trying to protect the great classic golf courses and the continual growth in the length of courses – whether they are new courses or old courses needing more land to expand.

Deep, sharp grooves in the hands of a talented amateur or a pro are a HUGE advantage. For us mortals, they are a little bit of help, but you have to strike the ball correctly and have a bit of head speed to get the full use.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Mar 4, 2009 12:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

True, that is the cause of it – as well as empirical data to show that hitting the fairway doesn’t really correlate with winning. (I looked at the data myself to prove it.)

by Ryan Ballengee on Mar 4, 2009 12:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's all relative...

…it doesn’t really matter if a long driver is hitting a tee shot 300 yards or 270 IF the mid length guys who were hitting 280 would then hit it 260….and so on and so on.

The problem is that we have been brainwashed into thinking that you HAVE to hit it 300 yards…even on a 6600 yard course. Roll back the distance either with the balls or the clubs – let the courses be the courses – adjust the grooves for the rough and make the pros NEED to hit the fairways.

We amateurs get new equipment – never change our swings, and the ball just goes deeper into the woods.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Mar 4, 2009 12:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I agree with that

That’s why I think these companies are wasting their time pursuing the holy grail of distance. Eventually, the clubs and/or balls are going to get dialed back. If they want to help players, then focus on forgiveness and control. Though, I understand that distance sells.

If these people spending $500 on drivers looking for more distance instead spent the money on a series of lessons, they’d probably get the distance anyway and lower their handicaps several strokes in the process.

by Double Eagle on Mar 4, 2009 12:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

oh come ON Eagle..

…that just makes TOO much sense !!! Just go buy a new game. Besides, all those lessons require…ppp…ppppppp…pprrract…. you know, the “P” word to make them work. :-D

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Mar 4, 2009 12:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hah!

Yes. What was I thinking?

by Double Eagle on Mar 4, 2009 12:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The golf companies would never make money if their commercials said, “Hey, buy this, practice hard with it, and get better. Then try us again in 5 years.”

by Ryan Ballengee on Mar 4, 2009 12:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs