Let's change the rules!
Bruce Newman
this game could be even better. I'm very happy with the Rules of Golf,
but I was thinking today that it could be more fun with some "tweaks".
What one change would you make to the RoG if you were the Supreme Rules
Commander? I'll start.
The one change I would make would be 4-4.a Maximum of Fourteen Clubs. I
would limit the number of clubs to six. This would allow a mix
something like this: driver, long one (wood or iron), middle iron,
short iron, sand wedge, and putter or any other combination you like.
(I'm _really_ thinking I would prefer five even more than six!)
My feeling is that this would allow us to re-capture the feeling of
"playing" the course, much as we did in the old days. Modern equipment
and swing theory seem to be eliminating the goofy, fun part of the
game. I'm not saying we would play better, but it would be fun to have
to create shots more often so we could really show our skills! :-)
Next?
Bruce
-------------------------------------------------------
Bruce E. Newman * bene...@nbnet.nb.ca * Fredericton, NB, Canada
http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/newmanb.htm
http://go.to/bruce_newman
Dariusz
Bruce Newman wrote:
>
> Okay, it's a long cold winter for most of us so let's think about how
> this game could be even better. I'm very happy with the Rules of Golf,
> but I was thinking today that it could be more fun with some "tweaks".
>
> What one change would you make to the RoG if you were the Supreme Rules
> Commander? I'll start.
>
> The one change I would make would be 4-4.a Maximum of Fourteen Clubs. I
> would limit the number of clubs to six. This would allow a mix
> something like this: driver, long one (wood or iron), middle iron,
> short iron, sand wedge, and putter or any other combination you like.
> (I'm _really_ thinking I would prefer five even more than six!)
>
> My feeling is that this would allow us to re-capture the feeling of
> "playing" the course, much as we did in the old days. Modern equipment
> and swing theory seem to be eliminating the goofy, fun part of the
> game. I'm not saying we would play better, but it would be fun to have
> to create shots more often so we could really show our skills! :-)
>
What is funny in playing 6 clubs instead of 14 ?
Funny thing is to play as much clubs as you can afford
Don't change the RoG
Just cancel 4-4.a to see how beatiful golfer's life could be ;-)
Jacek
Bob Dye
now posting on the news group who can remember not playing with the 14 club
limit. :-) I've been doing this longer than just about anybody here and I
sure can't. The 14 club came into existence to reduce the workman's comp
claims of the caddies from carrying bags that had as many as 28 clubs :-)
How about a rule that says you can only carry the club/s you hit
consistently in the middle of the clubface? That would reduce the number to
1 for most of us and some of us would be carrying an empty bag.
--
Bob Dye
Still Hacking Away
synergy1 @ nova1.net
.
"Bruce Newman" <bene...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:040120021505539767%bene...@nbnet.nb.ca...
Dariusz
Bob Dye wrote:
>
> Your right it's been a long winter. I doubt that there is a single person
> now posting on the news group who can remember not playing with the 14 club
> limit. :-) I've been doing this longer than just about anybody here and I
> sure can't. The 14 club came into existence to reduce the workman's comp
> claims of the caddies from carrying bags that had as many as 28 clubs :-)
Made sense until electric carts were invented.
>
> How about a rule that says you can only carry the club/s you hit
> consistently in the middle of the clubface? That would reduce the number to
> 1 for most of us and some of us would be carrying an empty bag.
Making no sense at all.
Think, that Amendment 4-4.a Maximum of Fourteen Clubs rules the golf
business of club manufacturers
releasing the limit would boost golf industry and increase profits by
100-200%.
Just imagine one could buy 2 or 3 sets of clubs, use swet of old clubs
both with new one.
Had an opportunity to compare old and new ones on a course.
Now, Amendment 4-4.a pumps milions of used clubs into ebay, second-hand
shops, frozing demand for new technological breathrough in club design
and manufacturing.
It is like telling drivers, that buying and driving 2 cars in one day is
not allowed.
So please give more reasonable business-side backed grounds for 14 club
limit.
My supposed answer is, golf bag limit was set by manufacturers of golf
bags, set by some patents issued
for golf bags.
Jacek
Felicity
> this game could be even better. I'm very happy with the Rules of Golf,
> but I was thinking today that it could be more fun with some "tweaks".
>
I like giving advice and am told that it is against the rules - so that
should be changed for a start..
I'd also like to be able to use a really old ball for risky shots where i
might lose it, then replace with a nice new one later - especially on the
putting green. In fact I'd like to use a distance ball for my long game and
be able to replace with a nice soft spin ball for approach shots and putts.
We need to outlaw clubs and balls that are obseleting some courses, and make
sure the pros have to go back to "craft" golf rather than smashing past the
trouble where they can hit an 8 iron to a green instead of cleverly shaping
a 4 iron like Faldo did in his day. He (NF) mentioned this on TV yesterday.
--
F.
If *anyone* at all has any suggestions or contributions to make
to the GOLF SWING TECHNIQUE FAQ, then please either
e-mail them to me at feli...@grayhall.demon.co.uk or add a
post to the relevant thread in the newsgroup rec.sport.golf.
bkn...@conramp.net
<bene...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
:Okay, it's a long cold winter for most of us so let's think about how
:this game could be even better. I'm very happy with the Rules of Golf,
:but I was thinking today that it could be more fun with some "tweaks".
:Next?
Your suggestion about limiting the number of clubs is
interesting,in that it would bring more "feel" to the game.'
Now, if you're between clubs, there's a half-club disparity.
You'd have to really be choosy about your 5 or 6 club choices
because of the disparities between those clubs that have a larger
difference in yardages. Which ones would you choose then?
The one rule that I always thought needed changing is the OB,
stroke and distance, rule. As an example, my course has a 190
yard par 3 that's very narrow, with a lake on the left and OB
right. A pull, into the water, gets you a stroke penalty...but
you get the distance. A relative push shot greets you with a
severe, stroke and distance penalty.
That's from the regular tees. An anomaly is that, from the back
tees, it's 195....but from an island tee in the lake. It's
actually easier because the angle allows for the same push, or
pull to stay playable. You just have to carry the water.
Then,too, it would sure speed up the game.
Bruce Newman
bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
> Your suggestion about limiting the number of clubs is
> interesting,in that it would bring more "feel" to the game.'
> Now, if you're between clubs, there's a half-club disparity.
> You'd have to really be choosy about your 5 or 6 club choices
> because of the disparities between those clubs that have a larger
> difference in yardages. Which ones would you choose then?
[...]
Yes, that's exactly what I was getting at. I love hitting half and 3/4
shots, but I am also thinking of all levels of play. Imagine watching
Tiger on TV and he has to choose between a wedge and a 6 iron from 150
yards. It takes some skill to feather a 6 iron from 150! More effect of
player and less of club.
Arnie Macy
"Bruce Newman" wrote in part ...
>
> The one change I would make would be 4-4.a Maximum of Fourteen Clubs. I
> would limit the number of clubs to six. This would allow a mix
> something like this: driver, long one (wood or iron), middle iron,
> short iron, sand wedge, and putter or any other combination you like.
> (I'm _really_ thinking I would prefer five even more than six!)
>
Oh, thanks a lot, Bruce. It's taken me over two years to figure out that
there is really only about a ten to fifteen yard difference between each of
my irons. But, If I had to limit it to 5 clubs, I would pick the Driver,
3i, 7i, PW, and putter.
Arnie -
RSG Roll Call:
http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/macya.htm
Dariusz
what are you going to limit your set to 5 clubs ?
what for ?
pulled cart with full or partial set weighs the like.
I would prefer electric part with oversized set of 100 clubs ;-)
Look at painters. Some paint pictures on canvas using only 4-5 basic oil
paints
but i painted oil paintings on canvas using 20-30 different paints
More paints less time wasted for mixing colours.
So my 100 club oversized set of extreme clubs + electric cart + caddy as
a driver + Ginger from Dean
+ computer system equipped with laser rangefinders, satellite/gps data
collecting system, 3d modelled course layout and software optimizing
club selection ,
why not ?
why get you used to drive non-ABS car if ABS is a standard ?
Think that pros could afford really extreme technology in golf in $
100,000 price range.
Seletion done by golf robot, not personally by you.
I really don't know why not ?
Jacek
Dariusz
RickR wrote:
>
> Why is it that when you get reasonable answers you accuse us of not knowing and
> that your reasons are actuall the correct ones?
Frankly speaking got no answer for no club limit.
Look at archives of RSG.
So how could i accuse you of anything ?
>
> Read the answers, go visit the USGA and R&A web sites, and then if you cannot
> find an answer, ask here
Read once again.
I am not asking you for anything.
Just discussing pros for no 14 club limit.
(but be prepared to accept the answers that are
> offered - it's the best we can do to provide the information we have.)
Many people give many different answers.
I even can't imagine, that Caddies stay behind RoG.
But of course i don't have to know all clues.
I appreciate your opinions as along as they meet my expectations ;-)
Jacek
> ---------------------------------------
> Rick Rider
> Please: no spam, off topic, or crossposts as explained
> in the "official" RSG FAQ:
> FAQ site: http://ttsoft.com/thor/rsggolf.html
> My RSG Roll Call profile: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/riderr.htm
Jeff Connelly
> this game could be even better. I'm very happy with the Rules of Golf,
> but I was thinking today that it could be more fun with some "tweaks".
>
> What one change would you make to the RoG if you were the Supreme Rules
> Commander?
Give up on the silly idea of players being their own referees. This is a
joke and everyone knows it. If the players were their own referees, then
there wouldn't need to be rules officials at every tournament. For example:
if a player shoots 65 and signs for 66, he takes 66. Stupid. The people he
played with know what he shot. If someone is going to cheat, they are going
to cheat, and it doesn't matter what sport you play. It's inconsistent to
have some rules that other people call on you, and have some that you call
on yourself because only you know you did it. Call the things on yourself
that you did wrong, and get help with those things you need. If someone
signs for a 65 but really shot a 66 and says it was an honest mistake, then
trust him and adjust his score. Don't say "it's a game of honesty and the
players call themselves - unless we happen to be watching you."
Jeff Connelly
"Dariusz" <dar...@poczta.onet.pl> wrote in message
news:3C36020E...@poczta.onet.pl...
> It is like telling drivers, that buying and driving 2 cars in one day is
> not allowed.
But driving 2 cars at once is NOT allowed. I have way over 14 clubs. There
is no rule against how many I can own, just how many I can use during 1
round.
> So please give more reasonable business-side backed grounds for 14 club
> limit.
> My supposed answer is, golf bag limit was set by manufacturers of golf
> bags, set by some patents issued
> for golf bags.
Ridiculous. There is no business argument. Those are the rules of the
game.
Bruce Newman
<dar...@poczta.onet.pl> wrote:
> Read once again.
> I am not asking you for anything.
> Just discussing pros for no 14 club limit.
>
> (but be prepared to accept the answers that are
> > offered - it's the best we can do to provide the information we have.)
>
> Many people give many different answers.
> I even can't imagine, that Caddies stay behind RoG.
> But of course i don't have to know all clues.
>
> I appreciate your opinions as along as they meet my expectations ;-)
The way I see it, Jacek, the more clubs you are allowed to carry, the
more your play is influenced by your clubs. On the other hand, the
fewer clubs you are allowed, the more you are forced to be creative
with them. That is why (in a dream world) I would like to see fewer
clubs. It puts the emphasis on the player and not on the equipment.
Anyhow, in the thread I started about rule changes, I was only
suggesting my choice for one rule change. I didn't mean for a club
limit discussion to erupt and I thought other people might have their
own interesting ideas.
Eliyahu
"Jeff Connelly" <jcon...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:HmoZ7.4291$Cd6.1...@typhoon1.southeast.rr.com...
>
> "Dariusz" <dar...@poczta.onet.pl> wrote in message
> news:3C36020E...@poczta.onet.pl...
> > It is like telling drivers, that buying and driving 2 cars in one day is
> > not allowed.
>
> But driving 2 cars at once is NOT allowed.
Sure it is... If you can figure a way to do it...
--
Eliyahu Rooff
www.geocities.com/Area51/Underworld/8096/HomePage.htm
RSG Rollcall http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/rooffe.htm
glfnaz
bend, work, and learn 1/2 and 3/4 shots.
It'd be fun--but very frustrating for beginners.
Don't forget too the whole issue of course management. You'd always want to
leave shots in the fairway that give you a full shot with what clubs are in
your bag.
Crispin Roche
> >
> > Your right it's been a long winter. I doubt that there is a single
person
> > now posting on the news group who can remember not playing with the 14
club
> > limit. :-) I've been doing this longer than just about anybody here and
I
> > sure can't. The 14 club came into existence to reduce the workman's
comp
> > claims of the caddies from carrying bags that had as many as 28 clubs
:-)
>
> Made sense until electric carts were invented.
It doesn't really matter what the rules set as the maximum number of clubs,
or who or what has to carry them, there will always be people who want to
carry more. Personally I usually take out only 12 clubs (3W, 5W, 3-9I, PW,
SW and putter) and of those rarely hit my 4 and 8 irons.
Crispin Roche
Dariusz
Eliyahu wrote:
>
> "Jeff Connelly" <jcon...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:HmoZ7.4291$Cd6.1...@typhoon1.southeast.rr.com...
> >
> > "Dariusz" <dar...@poczta.onet.pl> wrote in message
> > news:3C36020E...@poczta.onet.pl...
> > > It is like telling drivers, that buying and driving 2 cars in one day is
> > > not allowed.
> >
> > But driving 2 cars at once is NOT allowed.
>
> Sure it is... If you can figure a way to do it...
exactly
but as you don't play 2 clubs at once, so any limit is of theoretical
importance.
Could you imagine and describe what impact on golf industry could have
one-year club limit moratorium ?
Jacek
Crispin Roche
Felicity <feli...@grayhall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1010172899.27096....@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Bruce Newman" <bene...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> news:040120021505539767%bene...@nbnet.nb.ca...
> > Okay, it's a long cold winter for most of us so let's think about how
> > this game could be even better. I'm very happy with the Rules of Golf,
> > but I was thinking today that it could be more fun with some "tweaks".
> >
>
> I like giving advice and am told that it is against the rules - so that
> should be changed for a start..
I agree Rule 8 should be changed. With the amount of really crap advice
that is doled out the penalty should be changed to disqualification and
instant removal from the course.
Crispin Roche
Crispin Roche
>
>
> Arnie Macy wrote:
> >
> > "Bruce Newman" wrote in part ...
> > >
> > > The one change I would make would be 4-4.a Maximum of Fourteen Clubs.
I
> > > would limit the number of clubs to six. This would allow a mix
> > > something like this: driver, long one (wood or iron), middle iron,
> > > short iron, sand wedge, and putter or any other combination you like.
> > > (I'm _really_ thinking I would prefer five even more than six!)
> > >
> >
> > Oh, thanks a lot, Bruce. It's taken me over two years to figure out
that
> > there is really only about a ten to fifteen yard difference between each
of
> > my irons. But, If I had to limit it to 5 clubs, I would pick the
Driver,
> > 3i, 7i, PW, and putter.
>
> what are you going to limit your set to 5 clubs ?
> what for ?
> pulled cart with full or partial set weighs the like.
> I would prefer electric part with oversized set of 100 clubs ;-)
>
> Look at painters. Some paint pictures on canvas using only 4-5 basic oil
> paints
> but i painted oil paintings on canvas using 20-30 different paints
> More paints less time wasted for mixing colours.
>
Cézanne used only 12 colours and he certainly didn't need to waste his time
deciding on what colour and how to get to it.
Crispin Roche
Felicity
"Crispin Roche" <crispi...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:s%oZ7.56550$4x4.7...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Yes, I'm sure you have a very good point regarding cr*p advice. However, I
wouldn't put mine in that category.
Jeff Connelly
> Could you imagine and describe what impact on golf industry could have
> one-year club limit moratorium ?
What's your point? You keep mentioning this over and over. Could you
imagine and describe what impact it would have on the golf industry if the
rule was changed so that we were required to carry 100 clubs? Could you
imagine if there was a rule that all golf clubs must have rough sandpaper on
the face and all balls must be balata? Could you imagine if all players
were required to carry 2 spare sets of golf shoes in their bags? Could you
imagine if the rule said a golf bag could only hold 2 clubs, so we have to
buy 7 golf bags?
Jeff Connelly
>
> It doesn't really matter what the rules set as the maximum number of
clubs,
> or who or what has to carry them, there will always be people who want to
> carry more. Personally I usually take out only 12 clubs (3W, 5W, 3-9I,
PW,
> SW and putter) and of those rarely hit my 4 and 8 irons.
Now that is an odd thing to say. Why would you rarely hit your 8 iron, of
all things?
Robert Hamilton
snip...
> Next?
Not that I would presume to EVER tell the USGA what to do, but.....
We need a fairway divot rule. In fact, we need a fairway rule. If the
ball is in the fairway, you are entitled to a clean shot; period.
We need a rough rule. You hit the ball into the rough, what you see is
what you get. No relief from anything; period, including artificial
obstructions. There is always the unplayable lie rule.
Get rid of the handicapping system. The fact is that someone like me,
who can't break 80 more than once a month, is not in the same league as
a scratch golfer, and there is no fair way to equalize the differences.
Rob
__________________________________________________________________
RSG-MS
RSG Masters
http://home.att.net/~janellenrob/RSG-MS.html
__________________________________________________________________
"R&B"
of the rule, I never use more than 14 clubs on any given hole.
--
Randy
===================================================
Randy's personal play space - www.YouGoGolf.com
BOSS AUDIO - www.RandyBrownProductions.com
===================================================
e-me: r a n d y @ y o u g o g o l f . c o m
"I wonder if illiterate people get the full effect of alphabet soup?"
"Dariusz" <dar...@poczta.onet.pl> wrote in message
news:3C36020E...@poczta.onet.pl...
Dariusz
Exactly.
"When Paul Cezanne died in October 1906 in Aix-en-Provence in the South
of France, few of his contemporaries copuld comprehend the true
greatness of this artist. The Paris newspapers reacted by publishing a
handful of rather equivocal obituries. "Imperfect talent", "crude
painting", "an artist that never was", "incapable of anything but
sketches" ...
Cezanne himself "I am long on hair and beard but short on talent"
So he really did sketches, but sketches with a brush and paints.
The real reason for his way of painting was his congenial sight defect.
Jacek
Dariusz
Jeff Connelly wrote:
>
> "Dariusz" <dar...@poczta.onet.pl> wrote in message
> news:3C361C28...@poczta.onet.pl...
> > Could you imagine and describe what impact on golf industry could have
> > one-year club limit moratorium ?
>
> What's your point? You keep mentioning this over and over.
Only twice.
Could you
> imagine and describe what impact it would have on the golf industry if the
> rule was changed so that we were required to carry 100 clubs?
Your assumption makes no sense.
Limit is a restriction of possibilities not an obligation.
Could you
> imagine if there was a rule that all golf clubs must have rough sandpaper on
> the face and all balls must be balata? Could you imagine if all players
> were required to carry 2 spare sets of golf shoes in their bags?
You mistake limit with obligation.
Could you
> imagine if the rule said a golf bag could only hold 2 clubs, so we have to
> buy 7 golf bags?
see above
Jacek
Crispin Roche
Well I was a little surprised when I checked my stats but on average I use
my 8 iron about twice every three rounds. I suspect the reason is because I
practice a lot with my 7 and 9 irons and I try and hit those clubs to cover
the "missing" distance.
Crispin Roche
Arnie Macy
> Now that is an odd thing to say. Why would you rarely hit your 8 iron, of
> all things?
>
Ya know that's interesting, but I don't hit my 8i very often either. It's
usually the 7 or 9.
Jeff Connelly
>
>
> Jeff Connelly wrote:
> >
> > "Dariusz" <dar...@poczta.onet.pl> wrote in message
> > news:3C361C28...@poczta.onet.pl...
> > > Could you imagine and describe what impact on golf industry could have
> > > one-year club limit moratorium ?
> >
> > What's your point? You keep mentioning this over and over.
> Only twice.
> Could you
> > imagine and describe what impact it would have on the golf industry if
the
> > rule was changed so that we were required to carry 100 clubs?
> Your assumption makes no sense.
> Limit is a restriction of possibilities not an obligation.
What the hell are you talking about? The USGA rule is: 14 clubs max. That
is the reason. Period. Manufacturing and caddies have nothing to do with
it. One more word and into the killfile you go.
Perfect Impact
"glfnaz" <glf...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:3C361C26...@qwest.net...
> It would definitly require the player to 'create' shots. They'd have to
shape,
> bend, work, and learn 1/2 and 3/4 shots.
> It'd be fun--but very frustrating for beginners.
> Don't forget too the whole issue of course management. You'd always want
to
> leave shots in the fairway that give you a full shot with what clubs are
in
> your bag.
Probably. But you might have a game honed with part shots that are as
accurate.
GH
Dariusz
Jeff Connelly wrote:
>
> "Dariusz" <dar...@poczta.onet.pl> wrote in message
> news:3C3628C8...@poczta.onet.pl...
> >
> >
> > Jeff Connelly wrote:
> > >
> > > "Dariusz" <dar...@poczta.onet.pl> wrote in message
> > > news:3C361C28...@poczta.onet.pl...
> > > > Could you imagine and describe what impact on golf industry could have
> > > > one-year club limit moratorium ?
> > >
> > > What's your point? You keep mentioning this over and over.
> > Only twice.
> > Could you
> > > imagine and describe what impact it would have on the golf industry if
> the
> > > rule was changed so that we were required to carry 100 clubs?
> > Your assumption makes no sense.
> > Limit is a restriction of possibilities not an obligation.
>
> What the hell are you talking about? The USGA rule is: 14 clubs max. That
> is the reason. Period. Manufacturing and caddies have nothing to do with
> it. One more word and into the killfile you go.
Stop trolling.
Rick insist on caddies staying behind 14 club limit.
And don't be silly, rule is not the reason.
We graduated from nursery a long time ago.
If not caddies, nor golf business, so who insisted on 14 club limit ?
If somebody knows the real reason for 14 club limit please let me know.
Why not 15 or 13 ?
greetings,
Jacek
Dariusz
RickR wrote:
>
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2002 23:07:48 +0100, Dariusz <dar...@poczta.onet.pl> wrote:
>
> >
> >So he really did sketches, but sketches with a brush and paints.
> >The real reason for his way of painting was his congenial sight defect.
> >
> Which he'd had since birth.
exactly
congenital = from or before birth
Dave Clary
>It would definitly require the player to 'create' shots. They'd have to shape,
>bend, work, and learn 1/2 and 3/4 shots.
>It'd be fun--but very frustrating for beginners.
I don't think so. Hell, beginners and some people who have been
playing for 20 months (yours truly) tend to be pretty erratic with
their distances. How many times have we seen the advice to high
handicappers just to carry the odd-number irons?
I think the low-capper would the person who would be challenged by
this.
Dave Clary/Corpus Christi,TX
KFTB
http://home.stx.rr.com/dclary
RSG Roll Call
http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/claryd.htm
Joe Cartpath
"Arnie Macy" <kt...@csam.net> wrote in message
news:rPpZ7.172892$BX4.10...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
My 8 iron doesn't get much use either - I'm usually hitting a 5 wood :-(
--
Joe Cartpath - www.joecartpath.com
Dariusz
RickR wrote:
>
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2002 23:47:22 +0100, Dariusz <dar...@poczta.onet.pl> wrote:
>
> >Stop trolling.
> >Rick insist on caddies staying behind 14 club limit.
> >And don't be silly, rule is not the reason.
> >We graduated from nursery a long time ago.
> >
> >If not caddies, nor golf business, so who insisted on 14 club limit ?
> >
> >If somebody knows the real reason for 14 club limit please let me know.
> >
> >Why not 15 or 13 ?
> >
> First, I did not say it was the caddies that instituted the rule. Learn to
> read.
Nope.
You said what you said below:
"
> The reason, I have most often heard, was that it offered relief to the caddies
> lugging around too many clubs. It also limited the options a player had because
> he no longer had access to the myriad of clubs that had been carried by the
> caddy.
"
>
> I also said it was not the golf business...
i said so
>
> Gee, do you think it could have been the ruling body of golf? Naw! That would
> make too much sense.
>
> I'll say it one more time.
>
> It was the USGA and the R&A that set the rule to limit the number of clubs to
> 14.
Do you know what congress/parliament is ?
USGA is congress/parliament for golf society in US.
So even don't try to say, that USGA sets the rules by no reason.
>
> The reason, I have most often heard, was that it offered relief to the caddies
> lugging around too many clubs. It also limited the options a player had because
> he no longer had access to the myriad of clubs that had been carried by the
> caddy.
Ok.
Are you speaking for USGA ?
If so or not name real sources or references for your heard information
on the reason for 14 club limit anyway.
>
> Caddies didn't write the rule. The bag manufacturers didn't write the
> rule...the governing bodies of golf wrote the rule.
People don't write the laws ,.. congress writes
but i am still asking for real grounds for 14 club limit
why not 13 or 15 ?
>
> Got it?
>
Idiot!
EOF
DJD
I use a full swing 8 iron very frequently, it is my 9i and PW that don't
see much use on the course.
--
Dan Driscoll
Member USGA, NCGA
RSG FAQ: http://ttsoft.com/thor/rsggolf.html
RSG Roll Call http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/driscolld.htm
Chris Fairchild CKF
How about stroke and drop, two clublengths from place it went OB. Or
distance, no stroke (drop where you are and are hitting two).
Chris
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:ob0c3ugai5nbk427a...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2002 19:05:53 GMT, Bruce Newman
> <bene...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>
> :Okay, it's a long cold winter for most of us so let's think about how
> :this game could be even better. I'm very happy with the Rules of Golf,
> :but I was thinking today that it could be more fun with some "tweaks".
>
> :Next?
>
> Your suggestion about limiting the number of clubs is
> interesting,in that it would bring more "feel" to the game.'
> Now, if you're between clubs, there's a half-club disparity.
> You'd have to really be choosy about your 5 or 6 club choices
> because of the disparities between those clubs that have a larger
> difference in yardages. Which ones would you choose then?
>
> The one rule that I always thought needed changing is the OB,
> stroke and distance, rule. As an example, my course has a 190
> yard par 3 that's very narrow, with a lake on the left and OB
> right. A pull, into the water, gets you a stroke penalty...but
> you get the distance. A relative push shot greets you with a
> severe, stroke and distance penalty.
>
> That's from the regular tees. An anomaly is that, from the back
> tees, it's 195....but from an island tee in the lake. It's
> actually easier because the angle allows for the same push, or
> pull to stay playable. You just have to carry the water.
>
> Then,too, it would sure speed up the game.
>
Scooter
<snip>
> but i am still asking for real grounds for 14 club limit
> why not 13 or 15 ?
Because then you'd be asking "why not 11 or 14?" or "why not 14 or 15?"
:-)
KenPitts
agrees with me.
I have found my ball in outside-in, hack divots that made it
impossible for me to make a swing toward the pin. iee the divot was
pointing 45 degrees left of the target. One was so bad that II had to
putt the ball out.
Ken
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On Fri, 04 Jan 2002 19:05:53 GMT, Bruce Newman <bene...@nbnet.nb.ca>
wrote:
>Okay, it's a long cold winter for most of us so let's think about how
>this game could be even better. I'm very happy with the Rules of Golf,
>but I was thinking today that it could be more fun with some "tweaks".
>
Scooter
"Scooter" <skoot...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:GpFuq...@news.boeing.com...> news:3C36380D...@poczta.onet.pl...
> <snip>
> > but i am still asking for real grounds for 14 club limit
> > why not 13 or 15 ?
>
> :-)
>
Dammit. my numbers skills are shot- make that 12 or14 / 14 or 16.
>
>
Schnitzengruben
On Fri, 04 Jan 2002 20:06:21 +0100, Dariusz <dar...@poczta.onet.pl> wrote:
>
>
>Bruce Newman wrote:
>>
>> Okay, it's a long cold winter for most of us so let's think about how
>> this game could be even better. I'm very happy with the Rules of Golf,
>> but I was thinking today that it could be more fun with some "tweaks".
>>
>> What one change would you make to the RoG if you were the Supreme Rules
>> Commander? I'll start.
>>
>> The one change I would make would be 4-4.a Maximum of Fourteen Clubs. I
>> would limit the number of clubs to six. This would allow a mix
>> something like this: driver, long one (wood or iron), middle iron,
>> short iron, sand wedge, and putter or any other combination you like.
>> (I'm _really_ thinking I would prefer five even more than six!)
>>
>> My feeling is that this would allow us to re-capture the feeling of
>> "playing" the course, much as we did in the old days. Modern equipment
>> and swing theory seem to be eliminating the goofy, fun part of the
>> game. I'm not saying we would play better, but it would be fun to have
>> to create shots more often so we could really show our skills! :-)
>>
>What is funny in playing 6 clubs instead of 14 ?
>Funny thing is to play as much clubs as you can afford
>
>Don't change the RoG
>Just cancel 4-4.a to see how beatiful golfer's life could be ;-)
>
Sure: I can't wait for the guys in front of me to try and decide which of their
36 clubs would be the best to make the shot they have (when in reality it would
still get screwed up with any one of them). They spend enough time trying to
decide between a 7W or a 4i as it is. Give them more clubs and they will just
be more confused.One of my better rounds was when a buddy and I limited ourselves to using a wood
only once on any hole. I opted to tee off with a three iron for most holes and
even on the 500 yd par 5 used it all the way to my par (3i, 3i, 8i, 2 putts).
This exercise taught my a lot about how I was making my club selections.I doubt that I would go as low as 6 clubs, but I could see 10 easily.
---------------------------------------
Rick Rider
Please: no spam, off topic, or crossposts as explained
in the "official" RSG FAQ:
FAQ site: http://ttsoft.com/thor/rsggolf.html
My RSG Roll Call profile: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/riderr.htm
Oh sure, this is great! Just when I'd been convinced that it's a
great idea to have 4 wedges in my bag, you hosers want to take them away!
Pelz didn't cover how to blade that 60 degree over a 180 yd carry! Yikes,there's
a 5-club challenge on a regular course -- 4 wedges and a putter!
Schnitz
"I don't think the rough stuff's blowin' in for a couple hours, yer
Eminence.
I'd keep playin'." -- Carl Spackler
RSG roll call: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/kleinertt.htm
Arnie Macy
>
> I use a full swing 8 iron very frequently, it is my 9i and PW that don't
> see much use on the course.
>
Diversity of play. I think this is one of the great things about golf. I
use my pitching wedge religiously within 100 yards, right up to very short
chip shots (I have a 64* Lob wedge for sand). Yet I'll wager that Dan and I
could go out and compete against each other and do very well using
different club selections.
Arnie Macy
"Dariusz" wrote ...
> > >
> > > what are you going to limit your set to 5 clubs ?
> > > what for ?
> > > pulled cart with full or partial set weighs the like.
> > > I would prefer electric part with oversized set of 100 clubs ;-)
> > >
> > > Look at painters. Some paint pictures on canvas using only 4-5 basic
oil
> > > paints
> > > but i painted oil paintings on canvas using 20-30 different paints
> > > More paints less time wasted for mixing colours.
Why would I want to limit myself to five clubs when I can have 14? For the
shear fun of it. I know guys who play with THREE clubs just to see if they
can manage the course with them. And guess what? They can. (usually a 3i,
7i, and putter)
Some people get on the telephone and talk overseas. I use a High Frequency
radio and Morse Code. Why? Because its a challenge, and it's fun.
Sometimes there just doesn't need to be a reason.
Joe Cartpath
"KenPitts" <kenp...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:3c364433...@news-byoa.prodigy.net...
> I would make a divot deemed to be ground under repair. FWIW, Jack
> agrees with me.
>
> I have found my ball in outside-in, hack divots that made it
> impossible for me to make a swing toward the pin. iee the divot was
> pointing 45 degrees left of the target. One was so bad that II had to
> putt the ball out.
>
> Ken
>
Quit complaining, Ken. Hell, it took me three shots to get in position to
make that divot!
DPH
> Hear, hear. I've always thought stroke and distance was too severe for OB.
> How about stroke and drop, two clublengths from place it went OB. Or
> distance, no stroke (drop where you are and are hitting two).
I doubt the original framers of the O.B. rule anticipated
the number of houses and their closeness to the fairways
of today.
Distance (no stroke) has less 'judgement' involved, IMO.
--
--dph
membe...@rec-sport-golf.com
http://www.rec-sport-golf.com -- RSG's web complement
DPH
> In article <ob0c3ugai5nbk427a...@4ax.com>,
> bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
>
> > Your suggestion about limiting the number of clubs is
> > interesting,in that it would bring more "feel" to the game.'
> > Now, if you're between clubs, there's a half-club disparity.
> > You'd have to really be choosy about your 5 or 6 club choices
> > because of the disparities between those clubs that have a larger
> > difference in yardages. Which ones would you choose then?
> [...]
>
> Yes, that's exactly what I was getting at. I love hitting half and 3/4
> shots, but I am also thinking of all levels of play. Imagine watching
> Tiger on TV and he has to choose between a wedge and a 6 iron from 150
> yards. It takes some skill to feather a 6 iron from 150! More effect of
> player and less of club.
With your skill, you should show up on the first tee with a
rusty mismatched 'set' of 6 irons and kick the unsuspecting
butts of whoever you are paired with.
(I suspect that you are more gentlemanly than that, but _I_
certainly wouldn't be)
DPH
> I would make a divot deemed to be ground under repair. FWIW, Jack
> agrees with me.
>
> I have found my ball in outside-in, hack divots that made it
> impossible for me to make a swing toward the pin. iee the divot was
> pointing 45 degrees left of the target. One was so bad that II had to
> putt the ball out.
Why do the really deep divots always point towards O.B. (or
a pond) ?
I worry about any rules changes that leave too many judgement
calls for the players. How much re-growth would a divot need
before it lost its GUR status ? (Ken, I'm not expecting
you to have the definitive answer on this)
I think I'd try to simplify the rules rather than try to
eliminate the bad luck that players may experience.
For instance, treat all water hazards the way lateral WH's
are treated.
Bobby Knight
wrote:
>I think I'd try to simplify the rules rather than try to
>eliminate the bad luck that players may experience.
>
>For instance, treat all water hazards the way lateral WH's
>are treated.
What am I missing? A lateral hazard allows a drop, two club lengths
from entrance. A water hazard allows the same, except that you still
have to cross the hazard.
___
\o '
|
/ \
.
"Someone likes every shot"
bk
Meat Puppet
The 14 rule wasn't agreed upon until the early 1930's.
Prior to that time, there wasn't a limit and when play between the USA
and overseas became more common place, Bobby Jones met with a
representative from the R&A (I forgot who the person was off the top
of my head, but I can get it for those that want ...email me).
Bobby wanted the club limit to be 15 clubs (Which was what he
carried), his british counterpart wanted 13 (which was in his bag).
So, they compromised at 14. It became one of the first modern day
rules agreed upon between the two entities.
MP
Arnie Macy
>
> The 14 rule wasn't agreed upon until the early 1930's.
>
> Prior to that time, there wasn't a limit and when play between the USA
> and overseas became more common place, Bobby Jones met with a
> representative from the R&A (I forgot who the person was off the top
> of my head, but I can get it for those that want ...email me).
>
> Bobby wanted the club limit to be 15 clubs (Which was what he
> carried), his british counterpart wanted 13 (which was in his bag).
> So, they compromised at 14. It became one of the first modern day
> rules agreed upon between the two entities.
>
This is also my understanding of the history concerning the 14 club rule.
Chris Fairchild CKF
the fairway could be adapted. As in, you can roll the ball to relief on any
lie in the fairway less then the length of the scorecard or a club in your
bag. Every tournament I've ever played in allowed at least a scorecard
roll, and several I played in allowed relief in the fairway of a clublength.
Chris
"DPH" <dph@SEE_SIG_FOR_ADDRESS.com> wrote in message
news:m3ofk95...@amory.mediaone.net...
Mike Dalecki
>
> To cover relief from fairway divots, a "scorecard" or "clublength" roll in
> the fairway could be adapted. As in, you can roll the ball to relief on any
> lie in the fairway less then the length of the scorecard or a club in your
> bag. Every tournament I've ever played in allowed at least a scorecard
> roll, and several I played in allowed relief in the fairway of a clublength.
>
> Chris
The very essence of golf is playing the ball as it lies. What you
advocate above, I believe, is essentially winter rules all the time.
Any kind of a half-bare spot can be considered to be a divot not
comletely filled-in yet.
It think it's fine the way it is. Part of the game is having the mental
wherewithall to deal with bad luck.
Mike
> "DPH" <dph@SEE_SIG_FOR_ADDRESS.com> wrote in message
> news:m3ofk95...@amory.mediaone.net...
> > kenp...@flash.net (KenPitts) writes:
> >
> > > I would make a divot deemed to be ground under repair. FWIW, Jack
> > > agrees with me.
> > >
> > > I have found my ball in outside-in, hack divots that made it
> > > impossible for me to make a swing toward the pin. iee the divot was
> > > pointing 45 degrees left of the target. One was so bad that II had to
> > > putt the ball out.
> >
> > Why do the really deep divots always point towards O.B. (or
> > a pond) ?
> >
> > I worry about any rules changes that leave too many judgement
> > calls for the players. How much re-growth would a divot need
> > before it lost its GUR status ? (Ken, I'm not expecting
> > you to have the definitive answer on this)
> >
> > I think I'd try to simplify the rules rather than try to
> > eliminate the bad luck that players may experience.
> >
> > For instance, treat all water hazards the way lateral WH's
> > are treated.
> >
> > --
> > --dph
> > membe...@rec-sport-golf.com
> > http://www.rec-sport-golf.com -- RSG's web complement
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki RSG-Wisconsin 2002 Info http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2002
I do not patronize spammers. Help keep RSG clean!
Web Site: http://www.dalecki.net/clubdoctor/
RSG Roll Call: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/daleckim.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Strauss
>
>I use a full swing 8 iron very frequently, it is my 9i and PW that don't
>see much use on the course.
Same here. I could take the 9I out altogether and not miss it.
Probably the same for the PW, although that gets a little bit more
play.
I don't hit the 9 much, because every time I think I'm in 9I range, I
end up short. Don't quite know why -- it might be something about
that club and shaft, I'm not sure. I'm going to disassemble my
MacGregors once my new set is built, and check out spining and FLO.
My 8I is a great club, so is the 6I. The 7I is so-so, except for
chipping, where it's invaluable, and the 5 generally sucketh.
Peter Strauss
>of France, few of his contemporaries copuld comprehend the true
>greatness of this artist. The Paris newspapers reacted by publishing a
>handful of rather equivocal obituries. "Imperfect talent", "crude
>painting", "an artist that never was", "incapable of anything but
>sketches" ...
>Cezanne himself "I am long on hair and beard but short on talent"
>
>So he really did sketches, but sketches with a brush and paints.
>The real reason for his way of painting was his congenial sight defect.
Absolutely false. Look at the whole body of Cezanne's work. It is
not the product of a man with a sight defect. His work developed and
and his style grew over time. If you consider the entire oeuvre, it's
very plain to see the transition points.
People have said the same thing about El Greco --that he painted the
way he did because of astigmatism. Wrong.
If he was astigmatic, and saw things distortedly, and represented that
on the canvas, we would see what he saw, with no distortion. He would
have painted the straight line in a way that made it look crooked to
him. But we'd see the straight one.
Peter Strauss
wrote:
>
>Some people get on the telephone and talk overseas. I use a High Frequency
>radio and Morse Code. Why? Because its a challenge, and it's fun.
>Sometimes there just doesn't need to be a reason.
Right on, Arnie!
Peter
KO6R
johnty
<LevZ7.174683$BX4.10...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>, Arnie Macy wrote..
From my understanding of the history of the rules changes, this is a legend; the
true reasoning is more complex.
johnty
<MdpZ7.4304$Cd6.1...@typhoon1.southeast.rr.com>, Jeff Connelly wrote..
>
Could you
>imagine and describe what impact it would have on the golf industry if the
>rule was changed so that we were required to carry 100 clubs? Could you
>imagine if there was a rule that all golf clubs must have rough sandpaper on
>the face and all balls must be balata? Could you imagine if all players
>were required to carry 2 spare sets of golf shoes in their bags? Could you
>imagine if the rule said a golf bag could only hold 2 clubs, so we have to
>buy 7 golf bags?
>
I support you all the way. But would that mean we would have to carry 14 spare
pairs of shoes?
>
johnty
<hwrZ7.2029$gO5.1...@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Chris Fairchild CKF wrote..
>
>Hear, hear. I've always thought stroke and distance was too severe for OB.
>How about stroke and drop, two clublengths from place it went OB. Or
>distance, no stroke (drop where you are and are hitting two).
>
>Chris
>
><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:ob0c3ugai5nbk427a...@4ax.com...
>> stroke and distance, rule. As an example, my course has a 190
>> yard par 3 that's very narrow, with a lake on the left and OB
>> right. A pull, into the water, gets you a stroke penalty...but
>> you get the distance. A relative push shot greets you with a
>> severe, stroke and distance penalty.
>>
The OB rule has been changed experimentally at different times by the USGA
(twice) and the R&A. Each concluded that there is no more equitable way than
S&D. How would you or Bobby want the rule re-worded?
johnty
<5mac3ug72qp0pee5u...@4ax.com>, RickR wrote..
>
>On Fri, 04 Jan 2002 23:07:48 +0100, Dariusz <dar...@poczta.onet.pl> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>So he really did sketches, but sketches with a brush and paints.
>>The real reason for his way of painting was his congenial sight defect.
>>
Well, if one is going to have a sight defect, it's better to have a congenial
one I say.
johnty
<l1sc3u0252srfdpin...@4ax.com>, Bobby Knight wrote..
>
>
>What am I missing? A lateral hazard allows a drop, two club lengths
>from entrance. A water hazard allows the same, except that you still
>have to cross the hazard.
For a WH, there are only two relief options: S&D, and drop back on a line from
the hole through the point of entry.
Bobby Knight
wrote:
>On Sat, 05 Jan 2002 00:10:53 GMT, in article
><hwrZ7.2029$gO5.1...@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Chris Fairchild CKF wrote..
>>
>>Hear, hear. I've always thought stroke and distance was too severe for OB.
>><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>> The one rule that I always thought needed changing is the OB,
>>> stroke and distance, rule.
>
>The OB rule has been changed experimentally at different times by the USGA
>(twice) and the R&A. Each concluded that there is no more equitable way than
>S&D. How would you or Bobby want the rule re-worded?
How about similar to the lateral hazard wording. Something like
dropping the ball within two club lengths of where is last crossed the
OB line. The first question that arises is; how do you determine
that? Simple, the same way you determine the last crossing of a
hazard....as near as possible.
Bobby Knight
wrote:
My post was in answer to a suggestion by DPH, which was:
>>>For instance, treat all water hazards the way lateral WH's
>>>are treated.
I don't see an advantage. The only difference with the lateral is
that you may also drop keeping the point of entry between the ball and
the flag.
I just wanted clarification on what I had overlooked between the two,
that would make a difference.
puttster
"Bobby Knight" <bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:o9md3ug74d9jhfh0c...@4ax.com...
So the OB penalty would be the same as a lateral? Than makes sense, why was
it any different in the first place? Same deal for lost ball?
Puttster
puttster
"Dave Clary" <dcl...@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:fucc3ugpmhpup4aui...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2002 14:18:30 -0700, glfnaz <glf...@qwest.net> wrote:
>
> >It would definitly require the player to 'create' shots. They'd have to
shape,
> >bend, work, and learn 1/2 and 3/4 shots.
> >It'd be fun--but very frustrating for beginners.
>
> I don't think so. Hell, beginners and some people who have been
> playing for 20 months (yours truly) tend to be pretty erratic with
> their distances. How many times have we seen the advice to high
> handicappers just to carry the odd-number irons?
>
> I think the low-capper would the person who would be challenged by
> this.
>
> Dave Clary/Corpus Christi,TX
Who would rent the carts if they just had six clubs to carry? Who would buy
the big $200 bags? THINK, DAVE!
Puttster
puttster
"DPH" <dph@SEE_SIG_FOR_ADDRESS.com> wrote in message >
> eliminate the bad luck that players may experience.
>
> For instance, treat all water hazards the way lateral WH's
> are treated.
Totally agree. I think this could be done by eliminating the "no closer to
the hole" part of the 2 clublength drop. So if you say, hit the green then
entered a lake (or OB!) you could drop 2 clubs toward the green instead of
all the time-wasting antics you have to go through now. Maybe not as
precise but simpler, faster and I bet compliance would be better.
Puttster
Dave Clary
wrote:
What does that have to do with my comment? I was merely giving an
opinion on which golfer would have a harder time playing their game
under the club limitation. You're referencing some other part of this
discussion in which I have not participated. I don't know who or why
made the rule and I don't really care.
Dave Clary/Corpus Christi,TX
KFTB
http://home.stx.rr.com/dclary
RSG Roll Call
http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/claryd.htm
DPH
I wasn't suggesting that there's an advantage; in fact I agree
that there isn't. I was looking for a simplification in the
rules.
I don't think we need the distinction between red/yellow
staked hazards. The 2 clubs from point-of-entry option
wouldn't make drops from yellow-WH's any easier but it
might dispel some confusion in the mind of the rules-newbie.
DPH
The course could/should have a drop-area for a behind-the-green
water hazard (in the interest of pace of play).
Eliminating the no closer to the hole restriction on a two-club
drop might be a good idea anyway since so little advantage
can be gained (especially after the USGA limits the length of
drivers).
Crispin Roche
DPH <dph@SEE_SIG_FOR_ADDRESS.com> wrote in message
One of the key principles, if not the key principle, of the rules of golf is
that the ball advances to the hole by means of golf shots only. It is this
principle which works against the proposal for a drop and 2-shot penalty
for something OB. In the same way removing the difference between lateral
and non-lateral water hazards could easily create the opportunity for a ball
to be dropped closer to the hole. Certainly I have come across more
confusion, even amongst experienced players, regarding this idea that you
cannot drop closer to the hole than I have over the differences between
yellow and red stakes.
Crispin Roche
Arnie Macy
> >
>
> Right on, Arnie!
>
Yep, the very best part of Amateur Radio (IMNSHO)
Arnie -
KT4ST
www.qsl.net/kt4st
Home of Walt's World on the web
Chris Fairchild CKF
lateral hazard. That would keep additional penalty rules from entering the
rulebook, and keep it simple.
Chris
"johnty" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:NBzZ7.4948$cD4....@www.newsranger.com...
Chris Fairchild CKF
idea where the ball is with a lost ball. With OB or hazard penalties, it is
presumed that you either find the ball in the hazard or OB, or see it go
into thay area. No such luck with a lost ball, because it cannot be found.
I think with a lost ball the only reasonable penalty is stroke and distance.
If the spirit of this discussion is to make the rules a little easier, how
about just distance? As in, go back to the point you hit the shot, drop
with no additional penalty. That would still punish for the lost ball
without the added penalty stroke. The problem with it that I see is it
would encourage people that hit their ball into deep trouble just declare it
lost and eat the distance.
Chris
"puttster" <toms...@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:EE94428976B0564E.15F7CC13...@lp.airnews.net...
Chris Fairchild CKF
(I do take some issue with the penalty for OB, but that's about it). I was
just suggesting to the poster (DPH) that stated it would be a rule too open
to interpretation. If you want to create a rule that allows relief from
divots, just adopt a scorecard roll rule for ANY shot in the fairway. No
interpretation, because it doesn't matter if the ball is in a divot or not,
you can take this small amount of relief for any shot from the fairway. The
only interpretation would be "is my ball in the fairway" which most of the
time would be an easy call.
Chris
"Mike Dalecki" <mi...@dalecki.net> wrote in message
news:3C3699F...@dalecki.net...
Chris Fairchild CKF
lateral hazard. That would keep additional penalty rules from entering the
rulebook, and keep it simple.
Chris
"johnty" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:NBzZ7.4948$cD4....@www.newsranger.com...
DPH
<big snip>
> One of the key principles, if not the key principle, of the rules of golf is
> that the ball advances to the hole by means of golf shots only. It is this
> principle which works against the proposal for a drop and 2-shot penalty
> for something OB. In the same way removing the difference between lateral
> and non-lateral water hazards could easily create the opportunity for a ball
> to be dropped closer to the hole. Certainly I have come across more
> confusion, even amongst experienced players, regarding this idea that you
> cannot drop closer to the hole than I have over the differences between
> yellow and red stakes.
Really, the concept of no closer seems quite easy to grasp.
My reason for thinking that we could do away with it (no closer)
is that in most instances there wouldn't be a great advantage
gained by being slightly (2 * 46" or so) closer to the hole.
The biggest gain would occur with water hazards located behind
the green. Note that I also suggested that a drop area would
help with pace of play in that situation.
I'm actually quite happy with the rules as they exist and
would be thrilled if I saw them followed more closely.
In recent years I've personally witnessed:
a) An 11-hcapper who didn't know what 'addressed
the ball' meant when I penalized myself under
rule 18 after my ball moved on a tap-in putt.
b) A 5-hcapper who felt justified in removing thorny
vines so that he could safely take his stance.
c) Numerous instances of careless penalty drops under
rule 26. More than 2 club-lengths under 26-1c
or improper alignment of the drop spot under
26-1b.
These transgressions were by my teammates (most of my golf is
played as best-ball stroke play) and you can be assured that
they were told and that their score did not make it onto
our scorecard.
Tom Fenton
impossible to differentiate them.
"Chris Fairchild CKF" <fairchi...@hotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:jeFZ7.2381$gO5.1...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
Bobby Knight
wrote:
>>Bobby Knight <bkn...@conramp.net> writes:
>> My post was in answer to a suggestion by DPH, which was:
>>
>> >>>For instance, treat all water hazards the way lateral WH's
>> >>>are treated.
>>
>> I don't see an advantage. The only difference with the lateral is
>> that you may also drop keeping the point of entry between the ball and
>> the flag.
>>
>> I just wanted clarification on what I had overlooked between the two,
>> that would make a difference.
>
>I wasn't suggesting that there's an advantage; in fact I agree
>that there isn't. I was looking for a simplification in the
>rules.
>
>I don't think we need the distinction between red/yellow
>staked hazards. The 2 clubs from point-of-entry option
>wouldn't make drops from yellow-WH's any easier but it
>might dispel some confusion in the mind of the rules-newbie.
That's a good point. Now I understand your first post.
Bobby Knight
wrote:
>> >><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>
>> >>> The one rule that I always thought needed changing is the OB,
>> >>> stroke and distance, rule.
>> >
>> >The OB rule has been changed experimentally at different times by the
>USGA
>> >(twice) and the R&A. Each concluded that there is no more equitable way
>than
>> >S&D. How would you or Bobby want the rule re-worded?
>>
>> How about similar to the lateral hazard wording. Something like
>> dropping the ball within two club lengths of where is last crossed the
>> OB line. The first question that arises is; how do you determine
>> that? Simple, the same way you determine the last crossing of a
>> hazard....as near as possible.
>> >
>> bk
>
>So the OB penalty would be the same as a lateral? Than makes sense, why was
>it any different in the first place? Same deal for lost ball?
>Puttster
OK AFAIC.
puttster
A JOKE, DAVE!
puttster
DPH
My first post was to comp.sys.mac in 1987, boy you're slow. ;)
Bear
wrote:
>How about similar to the lateral hazard wording. Something like
>dropping the ball within two club lengths of where is last crossed the
>OB line. The first question that arises is; how do you determine
>that? Simple, the same way you determine the last crossing of a
>hazard....as near as possible.
Couldn't courses do this right now anyway? It seems to me that if a
course put in hazard stakes inside of the OB stakes you could do this
with out changing the rules.
>
> ___
> \o '
> |
> / \
> .
>"Someone likes every shot"
>bk
Cheers, Rod
Bear
wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Jan 2002 23:24:31 GMT, DJD <Bit...@NoSpammers.com> wrote:
>>
>>I use a full swing 8 iron very frequently, it is my 9i and PW that don't
>>see much use on the course.
>
>Same here. I could take the 9I out altogether and not miss it.
>Probably the same for the PW, although that gets a little bit more
>play.
>I don't hit the 9 much, because every time I think I'm in 9I range, I
>end up short. Don't quite know why -- it might be something about
>that club and shaft, I'm not sure. I'm going to disassemble my
>MacGregors once my new set is built, and check out spining and FLO.
>My 8I is a great club, so is the 6I. The 7I is so-so, except for
>chipping, where it's invaluable, and the 5 generally sucketh.
I had the same problem with my old set. When I had the lofts checked
on the set it turned out that the 9 iron was within a half a degree of
the PW. Sure made a difference after it was adjusted!
Cheers, Rod
Bobby Knight
wrote:
>> That's a good point. Now I understand your first post.
>
>My first post was to comp.sys.mac in 1987, boy you're slow. ;)
No, that post was so convoluted that it took me, and a Cray, this long
to decipher your meaning. :-)
Peter Strauss
>wrote:
>
>
>>> That's a good point. Now I understand your first post.
>>
>>My first post was to comp.sys.mac in 1987, boy you're slow. ;)
David, go to your room and get back on your meds. Right now. I mean
it!
(Of course he's slow. All the folks in the home are.)
P.S. What's weird? This is: I haven't seen dph's post, only BK's
reply to it. Server! Oh, Server! Wake up!
Peter Strauss
Well, if I can ever get over obsessing about making this new set the
"perfect set", I'll have a chance to mess around with the old ones.
But I can sure check the lofts. Never thought of that.
Thanks for mentioning that.
Peter
DPH
I had nothing to do it, BK is arguing with his inner
demons again (and I wish he'd stop calling one of them 'DPH').
Crispin Roche
DPH <dph@SEE_SIG_FOR_ADDRESS.com> wrote in message
> "Crispin Roche" <crispi...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
> <big snip>
>
> > One of the key principles, if not the key principle, of the rules of
golf is
> > that the ball advances to the hole by means of golf shots only. It is
this
> > principle which works against the proposal for a drop and 2-shot
penalty
> > for something OB. In the same way removing the difference between
lateral
> > and non-lateral water hazards could easily create the opportunity for a
ball
> > to be dropped closer to the hole. Certainly I have come across more
> > confusion, even amongst experienced players, regarding this idea that
you
> > cannot drop closer to the hole than I have over the differences between
> > yellow and red stakes.
>
> Really, the concept of no closer seems quite easy to grasp.
>
> My reason for thinking that we could do away with it (no closer)
> is that in most instances there wouldn't be a great advantage
> gained by being slightly (2 * 46" or so) closer to the hole.
>
> The biggest gain would occur with water hazards located behind
> the green. Note that I also suggested that a drop area would
> help with pace of play in that situation.
>
You would have thought that the idea of no closer would be easy to grasp but
it frequently seems to draw an uncomprehending "Why?" Particularly when the
player is taking a 2 club lengths drop. Also it seems difficult for players
to grasp the idea that no closer might mean that some of the relief or
penalty options are not actually available to them.
Crispin Roche
Chris Fairchild CKF
lateral hazard. That would keep additional penalty rules from entering the
rulebook, and keep it simple.
Chris
"johnty" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:NBzZ7.4948$cD4....@www.newsranger.com...
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2002 00:10:53 GMT, in article
> <hwrZ7.2029$gO5.1...@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Chris Fairchild CKF
wrote..
> >
> >Hear, hear. I've always thought stroke and distance was too severe for
OB.
> >How about stroke and drop, two clublengths from place it went OB. Or
> >distance, no stroke (drop where you are and are hitting two).
> >
> >Chris
> >
> ><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
> >news:ob0c3ugai5nbk427a...@4ax.com...
> >> The one rule that I always thought needed changing is the OB,
> >> stroke and distance, rule. As an example, my course has a 190
> >> yard par 3 that's very narrow, with a lake on the left and OB
> >> right. A pull, into the water, gets you a stroke penalty...but
> >> you get the distance. A relative push shot greets you with a
> >> severe, stroke and distance penalty.
> >>
>
Bruce Newman
Fairchild CKF" <fairchi...@hotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote:
> I think it would be simple to just make the penalty for OB be the same as a
> lateral hazard. That would keep additional penalty rules from entering the
> rulebook, and keep it simple.
But also the potential for more strokes as you would never have the
opportunity to blow two OB. I've done it lots of times, even 3!
Bruce
-------------------------------------------------------
Bruce E. Newman * bene...@nbnet.nb.ca * Fredericton, NB, Canada
http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/newmanb.htm
http://go.to/bruce_newman
Bobby Knight
wrote:
>In article <kIEZ7.2370$gO5.1...@news1.news.adelphia.net>, "Chris
>Fairchild CKF" <fairchi...@hotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>> I think it would be simple to just make the penalty for OB be the same as a
>> lateral hazard. That would keep additional penalty rules from entering the
>> rulebook, and keep it simple.
>
>But also the potential for more strokes as you would never have the
>opportunity to blow two OB. I've done it lots of times, even 3!
>
You've talked me out of wanting this rule changed.. I sure don't want to
lose the opportunity to blow two more OBs on a hole from the tee. :-)
"R&B"
The reason why there is a limit at all on the number of clubs is because of
all the complaints made in the first half of the 20th Century about the
teen-age (and younger) caddies seen bent over, trying to haul a bag over
their shoulders weighed down with 25-40 golf clubs in competition.
So the rulemakers decided to put a limit on it.
Now, if your question is why they settled on the number "14," instead of
some other number, you'd have to go back and dig up some information from
the era when the rule was first introduced (in the 1920s or 1930s, I
believe, though I'm not absolutely certain). I know of no online resource
where the genesis of this rule is explained and the rationale for 14
(instead of some other number) is justified.
It's been so long ago, I doubt if there's anyone still living who would
know.
But just like all "rules" in life, it is, by nature, an arbitrary number.
Why is the speed limit 70 (instead of 65 or 75?). Why do phone numbers have
seven digits (instead of 8?). Why does you social security number have nine
digits (instead of ten?).
The better question is, why waste time worrying about it?
It just is.
Randy
"Dariusz" <dar...@poczta.onet.pl> wrote in message
news:3C3630FA...@poczta.onet.pl...
>
>
> Jeff Connelly wrote:
> >
> > "Dariusz" <dar...@poczta.onet.pl> wrote in message
> > news:3C3628C8...@poczta.onet.pl...
> > >
> > >
> > > Jeff Connelly wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Dariusz" <dar...@poczta.onet.pl> wrote in message
> > > > news:3C361C28...@poczta.onet.pl...
> > > > > Could you imagine and describe what impact on golf industry could
have
> > > > > one-year club limit moratorium ?
> > > >
> > > > What's your point? You keep mentioning this over and over.
> > > Only twice.
> > > Could you
> > > > imagine and describe what impact it would have on the golf industry
if
> > the
> > > > rule was changed so that we were required to carry 100 clubs?
> > > Your assumption makes no sense.
> > > Limit is a restriction of possibilities not an obligation.
> >
> > What the hell are you talking about? The USGA rule is: 14 clubs max.
That
> > is the reason. Period. Manufacturing and caddies have nothing to do
with
> > it. One more word and into the killfile you go.
>
> Stop trolling.
> Rick insist on caddies staying behind 14 club limit.
> And don't be silly, rule is not the reason.
> We graduated from nursery a long time ago.
>
> If not caddies, nor golf business, so who insisted on 14 club limit ?
>
> If somebody knows the real reason for 14 club limit please let me know.
>
> Why not 15 or 13 ?
>
> greetings,
> Jacek
Bear
wrote:
NP. BTW I just finished making my first set of clubs last week, played
2 rounds with them now and I am mightily impressed. Seems all of my
research and self fitting has paid off...well at least so far!
Cheers, Rod
johnty
<o9md3ug74d9jhfh0c...@4ax.com>, Bobby Knight wrote..
>How about similar to the lateral hazard wording. Something like
>dropping the ball within two club lengths of where is last crossed the
>OB line. The first question that arises is; how do you determine
>that? Simple, the same way you determine the last crossing of a
>hazard....as near as possible.
>>
This brings in some complexities. If, as you have said in another post in this
thread, that you think S&D is right for a lost ball, would that mean a player
has to find his ball OB to use this rule?
If there was some doubt whether a ball went OB or was lost somewhere on the
course, then the rule would have to include the 'reasonable evidence' standard
as in Rule 26, and we know how controversial that can be.
It also allows a cheap way out of a terrible shot. Say a player shanked a tee
shot way into the woods which border a course. He would prefer to say 'lost'
and play again rather than having to drop a ball near the OB line, deep in the
trees and fight his way out. There's no benefit to the game if one can get out
of a problem of one's own making by craftily using the rule book rather than
exercising some skill.
I think that lost and OB are too similar in nature to have different penalties;
they are equitable situations, as the rules would word it. I don't think
they're comparable with water hazards.
With a ball in a WH, the ball is still on the field of play and the player is
'buying' a recovery shot to continue; same with unplayable. And that sounds fine
to me. It doesn't sound right that a player can buy a similar recovery from an
area that is not even part of the golf course, over a wall and lost 100 yards
away? (well, I've hit 'em like that once in a while).
I'd say that although your idea may alleviate some problems that many players
think of as 'unfair', it also creates a new set of 'unfair' problems.
Bobby Knight
>On Sat, 05 Jan 2002 04:48:12 -0600, in article
><o9md3ug74d9jhfh0c...@4ax.com>, Bobby Knight wrote..
>
>>How about similar to the lateral hazard wording. Something like
>>dropping the ball within two club lengths of where is last crossed the
>>OB line. The first question that arises is; how do you determine
>>that? Simple, the same way you determine the last crossing of a
>>hazard....as near as possible.
>>>
>
>This brings in some complexities. If, as you have said in another post in this
>thread, that you think S&D is right for a lost ball, would that mean a player
>has to find his ball OB to use this rule?
I don't remember saying this...in fact:
Puttster posted:
>>>So the OB penalty would be the same as a lateral? Than makes sense, why was
>>>it any different in the first place? Same deal for lost ball?
Bk Replied:
OK AFAIC.
<clip>
Joe Cartpath
>
> This brings in some complexities. If, as you have said in another post in
this
> thread, that you think S&D is right for a lost ball, would that mean a
player
> has to find his ball OB to use this rule?
> If there was some doubt whether a ball went OB or was lost somewhere on
the
> course, then the rule would have to include the 'reasonable evidence'
standard
> as in Rule 26, and we know how controversial that can be.
The courses I play fall into two catagories.
On one, OB is rarely an issue. These are older parkland courses where OB is
actually the outer boundaries of the course property - and only comes into
play a couple of time a round.
On the other, OB is a constant hazard. These are the newer courses built
around housing developments. Almost every hole has OB on one side - if not
both - and often very near many of the greens.
The current Rule was written when almost all courses were of the first
variety, and the Rule made sense. It usually takes a *really* crappy shot to
hit a ball OB. There are courses of this type I play where I have simply
*never* hit a ball OB anywhere on the course in 25+ years. It's almost
impossible to do.Courses of the second variety are a different matter. Shots
that would merely be in the rough on the first type of courses are OB here -
and, IMHO, the penalty is too severe given the proximity of the hazard.
My solution? Actually there are two options; change the Rule to make the OB
penlaty match the lateral hazard penalty, or allow - and encourage - the
courses to more liberally mark many of these OB areas as lateral hazards.
As for having any doubt as to whether the ball is lost or OB - I can't
remember that happening very often (if at all). When I hit one OB, I'm
always careful to hit it *way* OB. When that little sucker is last seen
sailing over the roof of a house adjoining the fairway, there's little doubt
it is OB. In actuality, on most courses, the OB ball is either just barely
on the wrong side of the stakes, or is clearly visible sitting in the middle
of someone's lawn.
--
Joe Cartpath - www.joecartpath.com
johnty
<i3me3usg03kbi5nor...@4ax.com>, Bobby Knight wrote..
>
>I don't remember saying this...in fact:
>Puttster posted:
>>>>So the OB penalty would be the same as a lateral? Than makes sense, why was
>>>>it any different in the first place? Same deal for lost ball?
>
>Bk Replied:
>OK AFAIC.
My mistake. I read a lot of posts on this thread, and I wrongly thought you had
said it.
So, if you feel it's the same deal for a lost ball, how would a player fairly
choose his place to take a drop?
Bobby Knight
A more difficult call, of course, but something on the order of:
Spot Not Determinable
If it is impossible to determine the spot where the ball is to be placed
or replaced: i.through the green, the ball shall be dropped as near
as possible to the place where it last was seen.
This isn't the perfect answer, nor will it clear up everyt;hing. However,
most of the lost balls I've encountered were NOT in the fairway, and a drop
from anywhere close to where you think it might be (with penalty) is not
going to give you a favorable position. You'll have to admit, it will
generally be used by amateurs, and will speed play.
puttster
Compare hitting one a foot OB versus one foot inside the stakes. Since the
difference in skill is so slight, why not make the penalty for both bad
shots more similar. Surely one stroke for two feet of difference is plenty!
>
> I think that lost and OB are too similar in nature to have different
penalties;
> they are equitable situations, as the rules would word it. I don't think
> they're comparable with water hazards.
> With a ball in a WH, the ball is still on the field of play and the player
is
> 'buying' a recovery shot to continue; same with unplayable. And that
sounds fine
> to me. It doesn't sound right that a player can buy a similar recovery
from an
> area that is not even part of the golf course, over a wall and lost 100
yards
> away? (well, I've hit 'em like that once in a while).
>
Yes, your point is the same as the USGA, there are degrees of unplayable
shots, the "regular" bad for one stroke and an "extra" bad shot for two
strokes. The proposal here is that if you hit a bad one, whether it goes in
the lake or over the house, it is the same one stroke. One bad shot, one
stroke penalty.
Lying 2 in the rough near the fence on your drive makes the hole tough to
win, but not impossible. That seems fair enough.
Puttster
Peter Strauss
Great, Rod.
I just tonight got some cutoff wheels, mineral spirits, an emery disc
to prep tips, and some safety goggles.
Tomorrow I'm ordering a swingweight scale from golfworks, and some
lead weights. As impatient as I am to get these babies up and
running, I do want to do 'em right.
Lie? Oh boy. I'm going to have to give it my best guess there.
Can't justify getting a loft-lie machine (yet!)
P.
CJ Elmore
>course put in hazard stakes inside of the OB stakes you could do this
>with out changing the rules.
I have played courses that have alternating red and white stakes down the side
of the fairway. As if they are saying play it as a hazard but don't play from
within it.