Why do we Question?

[Diane]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

Interesting diversion but the thread is about why we question the rules. We question because we think that some of the rules are stupid. We think that some rules are archaic. We think that some rules are unfair. It's really not that complicated. In fact the ruling bodies do the same thing every year, as do many who make their living playing the game. What baffles me is why some get their panties in such a bunch over the audacity of the questioners... as if we're throwing stones at Moses coming down from the mountaintop.

Waz - I believe there are several types of golfers. One type is a select group that I think of as the "real deal". They have an almost innate understanding of golf. Both my father and brother fall in this category. From what I've read, so do AtticusFinch, 4-Putt, Pa Playa, JPSuff, League and Darth. I'm not saying anyone here enjoys the game more or less than anyone else, but some people are able to grasp golf on a more basic and pure level - they don't question - they just play.

[coralpro]

A list of people that don't question and just play or a list of possible patients for a lobotomy.

[Diane]

Originally Posted by coralpro

A list of people that don't question and just play or a list of possible patients for a lobotomy.

I forgot to mention that sub-category of golfers who "get it", but also go to the beat of their own drummer. Please know it's a compliment when I say that you Coralpro are at the top of that list. I think BigV and Nikeguy are in this category too.

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by Diane

I forgot to mention that sub-category of golfers who "get it", but also go to the beat of their own drummer. Please know it's a compliment when I say that you Coralpro are at the top of that list. I think BigV and Nikeguy are in this category too.

You just made my day. I've been trying to get to the top of any list and I finally made it. If the world ended today I would go out with a smile.

[Leaguegolf]

Originally Posted by coralpro

A list of people that don't question and just play or a list of possible patients for a lobotomy.

I might agree with that........if yours hadn't turned out the way it did.

BTW......You've been at the top of the GRW whacko list for quite some time.

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by coralpro

A list of people that don't question and just play or a list of possible patients for a lobotomy.

Maybe we have a different meaning for "question." I am eternally curious about what is behind certain rules and principles, for historical reasons. But I don't espouse changing the rules simply because there is no answer or that it does not satisfy my idea of "logic." And I am content to accept that sometimes there will be no answer other than that is the way it has been.

(I've already had my lobotomy. )

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by Leaguegolf

BTW......You've been at the top of the GRW whacko list for quite some time.

And no one told me? I'm really gonna celebrate.

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by atticusfinch

Maybe we have a different meaning for "question." I am eternally curious about what is behind certain rules and principles, for historical reasons. But I don't espouse changing the rules simply because there is no answer or that it does not satisfy my idea of "logic." And I am content to accept that sometimes there will be no answer other than that is the way it has been.

(I've already had my lobotomy. )

I can agree in most but there is a difference in changing or modifying when it should be done than to look the other way or to make others feel it is not needed because it has always been that way. Penalizing someone for hitting a wrong ball from a bunker was changed this year.

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by Diane

Waz - I believe there are several types of golfers. One type is a select group that I think of as the "real deal". They have an almost innate understanding of golf. Both my father and brother fall in this category. From what I've read, so do AtticusFinch, 4-Putt, Pa Playa, JPSuff, League and Darth. I'm not saying anyone here enjoys the game more or less than anyone else, but some people are able to grasp golf on a more basic and pure level - they don't question - they just play.

I guess Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus aren't the "real deal" then. I've read both question the logic of a couple of rules. So with all due respect to the 6 above-mentioned, I'll stick with Arnie & Jack and continue to question. And I'm not that familiar with Darth's ideas on the subject yet, but how did JP make The High Order of The Rules Snobs ?

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by coralpro

I can agree in most but there is a difference in changing or modifying when it should be done than to look the other way or to make others feel it is not needed because it has always been that way. Penalizing someone for hitting a wrong ball from a bunker was changed this year.

I guess that is where we part. I can think of no rule that "should" be changed. As we have discussed ad nauseam, these are the rules of a game. Changing the rules might make it easier or more logical to some, but I maintain, "so what" if it is tough or illogical. We aren't talking about science or government where those considerations have importance. It is not a democracy.

They changed the bunker rule because it made the rule involving inspection of your ball more consistent. I had no problem with the way it was before, but, now they say, you can check the ball without penalty in a bunker. (There is still a penalty for playing the wrong ball bunker or not.) It might be better because there is less to think about....any ball can be lifted to determine whether it is yours.

What's funny is this issue has never come up in a discussion group that I am aware of other than a matter of curiosity. The perennially discussions issues, rife with predictions of change such as limiting removal of heavy loose impediments to the player and caddy, or treating divot holes as GUR haven't happened.

This tells me that we average players do not think about the rules the same as the ruling bodies. They think on a different plane. I do not consider myself qualified to question their judgment. (Some people say that makes me a lemming....)

They make the rules, I play by them. If they want my opinion and ask for it I will give it to them.)

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

I guess Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus aren't the "real deal" then. I've read both question the logic of a couple of rules. So with all due respect to the 6 above-mentioned, I'll stick with Arnie & Jack and continue to question.

There is a myth that good players, or seasoned players are experts on the rules or the way they ought to be. I would first ask, how many rules workshops did they attend and when was the last one?

I have listened to these "real deals" on TV for 40 years and am not impressed with their understanding of the rules. They simply have unsupported opinons like the rest of the golfing world.

Nicklaus believes divot holes ought to be GUR, but has never proposed a workable rule. If he did, the USGA would surely listen.

Palmer lost all my respect when he refused to admit that the callaway oversized driver should not be allowed for an undefined level of player that mostly meant his cronies at Bay Hill with 20 handicaps who couldn't hit a regulation driver with a bull dozer.

Sorry, reliance on legends, popular players or top players does not provide any support for changing the rules.

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by atticusfinch

I guess that is where we part. I can think of no rule that "should" be changed. As we have discussed ad nauseam, these are the rules of a game. Changing the rules might make it easier or more logical to some, but I maintain, "so what" if it is tough or illogical. We aren't talking about science or government where those considerations have importance. It is not a democracy.

They changed the bunker rule because it made the rule involving inspection of your ball more consistent. I had no problem with the way it was before, but, now they say, you can check the ball without penalty in a bunker. (There is still a penalty for playing the wrong ball bunker or not.) It might be better because there is less to think about....any ball can be lifted to determine whether it is yours.

What's funny is this issue has never come up in a discussion group that I am aware of other than a matter of curiosity. The perennially discussions issues, rife with predictions of change such as limiting removal of heavy loose impediments to the player and caddy, or treating divot holes as GUR haven't happened.

This tells me that we average players do not think about the rules the same as the ruling bodies. They think on a different plane. I do not consider myself qualified to question their judgment. (Some people say that makes me a lemming....)

They make the rules, I play by them. If they want my opinion and ask for it I will give it to them.)

Ok, now think about what you just said. You don't think yourself qualified to question their judgement and that they are on a different plane but yet when they make a rule change it is OK but when others not thought of as highly qualified as those wishy washy rules changers make a recommendation or complain a rule doesn't seem right or makes sense then those that question shouldn't. They should just play and be content that nothing is going to do any good by complaining or stating their opinion as to what needs changed. That's how changes are made; by input. The commitee doesn't just read through the rules and go "hey, this should be changed". I do agree that some of the rule changes wanted by hackers might be extreme but that is where I also say I don't mind them make local rules for themselves that don't effect anyone but themselves so they may enjoy the game much better. The only real time the rules of golf matters are in competitions when all have to play by the same set of rules and as long as they understand that I have no problem. I play by the rules of golf so that I may have a better idea when comparing my progress to others and if for some reason I don't during a round then it is then used as a practice round in which the score doesn't represent anything other than info for ones own use.

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by atticusfinch

Sorry, reliance on legends, popular players or top players does not provide any support for changing the rules.

My purpose in referring to them was to highlight the absurdity, IMHO of course, of Diane's "real deal" definition.

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by coralpro

Ok, now think about what you just said. You don't think yourself qualified to question their judgement and that they are on a different plane but yet when they make a rule change it is OK but when others not thought of as highly qualified as those wishy washy rules changers make a recommendation or complain a rule doesn't seem right or makes sense then those that question shouldn't. They should just play and be content that nothing is going to do any good by complaining or stating their opinion as to what needs changed. That's how changes are made; by input. The commitee doesn't just read through the rules and go "hey, this should be changed". I do agree that some of the rule changes wanted by hackers might be extreme but that is where I also say I don't mind them make local rules for themselves that don't effect anyone but themselves so they may enjoy the game much better. The only real time the rules of golf matters are in competitions when all have to play by the same set of rules and as long as they understand that I have no problem. I play by the rules of golf so that I may have a better idea when comparing my progress to others and if for some reason I don't during a round then it is then used as a practice round in which the score doesn't represent anything other than info for ones own use.

You seem to say that just because someone questions a rule, they should be taken seriously. Well, unless that person offers a rational basis for the change he proposes, I will ignore him.

I don't acknowledge that the usga and r&a are more knowlegable than me, I acknowledge that they write the rules of the game which I play by. My objections are irrelevant.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by coralpro

One could enjoy it more, lower blood pressure and I guess a ton of other reasons. But hey! If one loves to follow rules that make no sense and possibly makes the game more complexed and difficult than it needs to be, then by all means have a happy.

First... why would you put pressure on yourself or get stressed out over a game??? Ifplaying a game for recreation and relaxation causes you stress, then maybe you picked the wrong game???

Playing by the rules doesn't make it more complex... just the opposite. When you have a documented set of rules to follow, it's easy to know how to treat any situation that arises. All that's really involved in playing by the rules is know how to treat hazards, OB, lost ball, obstructions, and unplayable lies. Learn the procedures for those five common situations and you will eliminate 95% of the mistakes made by the average golfer. The rules are not that complex until you make a procedural error.

It's easy to learn how to do it right... much more complicated to correct your mistake after you do it wrong.

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by atticusfinch

You seem to say that just because someone questions a rule, they should be taken seriously. Well, unless that person offers a rational basis for the change he proposes, I will ignore him.

I don't acknowledge that the usga and r&a are more knowlegable than me, I acknowledge that they write the rules of the game which I play by. My objections are irrelevant.

Voice of change has to start somewhere whether you approve or not or nomatter what my opinion may be as well. That's all I'm saying. I believe we had discussed the unidentified ball in a bunker before as well and it was generally looked upon by most that since they don't penalize a person then it shouldn't matter but they changed it anyway. Probably the reasoning was to speed up play was one of the main concerns but I'm only guessing on that. The divot in the fairway might and could be looked upon in the same light. It would expedite play. OB, make it a two stroke penalty and no distance loss. Speed up play as well. Just thoughts but all could merit some consideration and who knows someday they may be a rule as well.

[Leaguegolf]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

My purpose in referring to them was to highlight the absurdity, IMHO of course, of Diane's "real deal" definition.

I've never really thought about it but I suppose I, and many others, do have an innate understanding of the game. Do I like all the rules? No, but I understand that the rules of golf are always evolving and I don't stand on the first tee worrying about how the rules of golf will mess with me today. I just play to the best of my ability and enjoy the game by playing within those rules. Would I play better if I played by a set of rules altered to amend or remove the rules I don't like, or think are unfair? Probably, but it wouldn't be anywhere near as satisfying as playing the game as the rules dictate I should play the game.

I, like many others, question the rules occasionally but reviewing the specific circumstances and reading the USGA's Decisions on the Rules of Golf has always given me a better understanding of why the rules are written the way they are. I find that the more people complain about the rules the less they usually understand them. That goes for every sport, not just golf.

[Leaguegolf]

Originally Posted by coralpro

Probably the reasoning was to speed up play was one of the main concerns but I'm only guessing on that. The divot in the fairway might and could be looked upon in the same light. It would expedite play. OB, make it a two stroke penalty and no distance loss. Speed up play as well.

Changing basic rules of golf simply to "speed up play" is never going happen. Particularly as it applies to playing from divots. Just hit the ball and you won't have to worry about speeding up the game.