Proposed new rules of golf

[cnosil]

Basic physics and loads of statistical data disagree with your flagstick make/miss ratio assertion. There is currently zero doubt the flagstick effectively makes the hole larger. Refocusing this particular topic on actual hole-out effects; do you believe it would adversely affect the integrity/heritage of the game if the governing bodies decided to increase the diameter of the hole to 5 inches? I will not be golfing with anyone who putts with the flagstick in the hole. I think this particular rule change is absurd.

I disagree with your assertion that it makes the hole bigger based on varying flagstick sizes and off center hits but whatever.

 

If the rule is 5 inch holes than that is the rule. You are talking about heritage and integrity of the game. Should we go back to stymies since that was once part of the game ? Should we change ball construction back to featheries ? Go back to hickory shafts? Where do you draw a line between heritage and integrity and potentially speeding up and possibly improving the game. You've never hit a ball to a foot and tapped in with the flag still in the hole or picked it up during stroke play? I know I have and would continue to do so even if the rule wasn't changed. Guess you won't be playing golf with me.

[Kenny B]

IMG_7266.PNG

 

I think we're twisting the OB rule a little bit in this thread. You still have to drop close to where the ball went OB; it's not a freebie to just drop in/near the fairway. The only case I can see that it would be OK to drop in the fairway is if you're virtually certain it's on the fairway and you lost the ball (under leaves or similar) or if a fairway is bordered by OB.

 

So your strokes would go like this:

1) Tee ball OB

2) Drop near exit point

3) Penalty

4) Hit "second" shot

 

 

Vs the other option:

1) Tee ball OB

2) Drop on box (re-tee)

3) Re-hit tee ball

4) Hit "second" shot

 

There's still going to be plenty of reasons to take the old rule to give yourself a better chance to hit your 4th from a good location.

 

 

 

 

So how this rule is written, I don't believe there's any more ambiguity in the drop location than there would be for a lateral hazard. The slow adopters will be the ones who don't like change.

 

 

 

Sent from carrier pigeon using MyGolfSpy

I guess it depends on what your definition of "in the vicinity".  Everyone's definition is going to be different.  If there is rough next to the OB, but I can drop in the fairway a few yards from the OB, I can claim that the fairway is "in the vicinity".  Otherwise, why didn't they say "closest point of relief from where the ball went OB"?  I could consider it like taking an unplayable and going back on the line to a point in the fairway if I chose to do that.  So how far is "in the vicinity" too far???

[STUDque]

I guess it depends on what your definition of "in the vicinity". Everyone's definition is going to be different. If there is rough next to the OB, but I can drop in the fairway a few yards from the OB, I can claim that the fairway is "in the vicinity". Otherwise, why didn't they say "closest point of relief from where the ball went OB"? I could consider it like taking an unplayable and going back on the line to a point in the fairway if I chose to do that. So how far is "in the vicinity" too far???

So I found this graphic on Golf Digest that explains it a little better. I guess that means I was technically wrong in my interpretation of the rule:

 

 

 

 

Based on new information, I change my stance to disagreement with the way they've structured this rule. My definition of "vicinity" is 2 club lengths from entry point and nothing else. I just don't get the point of letting people drop in the fairway. The only rationale I can place is that they're counting as if you dropped off a lateral hazard in jail then pitched out to the fairway.

 

 

Sent from carrier pigeon using MyGolfSpy

[excourse]

Bunkers are meant to be hazards (less than ideal). Absent this rule you'd inevitably have guys dragging the bounce through the sand to create a depression behind the ball and nothing in place to prohibit such acts. When golf was invented bunkers were natural features of consternation and rakes to tend them didn't exist.

Remember when Jack experimented with the wide furrow rake job for the Memorial and the best bunker players in the world were whining about how much more difficult it was to navigate? Jack's argument, perfectly manicured bunkers have become the bailout and a departure from their operative function in course design. If less than ideal lies in bunkers are hindering your enjoyment of the game, put more focus on avoiding them.

Essentially you're arguing that you shouldn't have to adjust your ideal bunker extraction technique in a situation intended to be less than ideal, because the conditions are less than ideal. While I wholeheartedly disagree with you on this one, I will concede that almost everyone could do a better job leaving bunkers in the same condition initially encountered. I always do extra raking for the karmic advantage.

I agree, bunkers are meant to be hazards. I'm all in for eliminating rakes, period.

If a player doesn't like bunkers that aren't manicured, stay the heck out of them.

Another rule I'd be on favor of is to allow players to mark their ball on the green ONCE. When you putt, putt out unless you putt off the green.

 

Sent from my SM-N950U using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[downlowkey]

I disagree with your assertion that it makes the hole bigger based on varying flagstick sizes and off center hits but whatever.

 

If the rule is 5 inch holes than that is the rule. You are talking about heritage and integrity of the game. Should we go back to stymies since that was once part of the game ? Should we change ball construction back to featheries ? Go back to hickory shafts? Where do you draw a line between heritage and integrity and potentially speeding up and possibly improving the game. You've never hit a ball to a foot and tapped in with the flag still in the hole or picked it up during stroke play? I know I have and would continue to do so even if the rule wasn't changed. Guess you won't be playing golf with me.

I'm not wrong about more balls going in the hole with the flagstick but the argument re: scoring vs proficiency aside; it's potentially another genteel aspect of the game that I personally will be sad to see on the rubbish pile. Along with things like shaking hands after a round and earnestly helping your competitor search for a lost ball; I feel like tending the flagstick for a playing partner is one of the social contracts that makes the game unique and special. In my opinion, because the majority of the rule updates have arisen solely from an increased pace of play impetus; there will be a myriad of unintended and deleterious consequences to the greater integrity of the game. But I really hope I'm wrong.

 

To play devil's advocate for a moment re: rules being rules...period. What if the governing bodies said from now on everyone can play improved lies? Are you saying that if established as a rule, then it can have no effect on the integrity that was originally envisaged for golf as a competitive activity? Because if we are going back to the stymie days (which for match play would be fine with me btw), playing the ball down on those early links courses meant you had a relatively crappy lie virtually every shot. And since you brought it up, golf equipment (featherie balls, hickory shafts, persimmon heads, etc) was technologically limited and I don't think subsequent advances have any bearing on the essence of the behavior expected from a player.

 

I am however of the opinion that golf is meant to be a grind, not a stroll in the park. And it's the manner in which you behave when things aren't going your way that puts your character on display. Until recently, the rules of golf have been developed to enhance character and grit. The majority of these new updates have arguably been developed with convenience in mind; the ubiquitous expectation of which ethnographic studies have posited as the bane of modern society.

[hckymeyer]

Basic physics and loads of statistical data disagree with your flagstick make/miss ratio assertion. There is currently zero doubt the flagstick effectively makes the hole larger. Refocusing this particular topic on actual hole-out effects; do you believe it would adversely affect the integrity/heritage of the game if the governing bodies decided to increase the diameter of the hole to 5 inches? I will not be golfing with anyone who putts with the flagstick in the hole. I think this particular rule change is absurd.

Honest question here.  If basic physics and loads of statistical data say leaving the flag in holes more shots...why does every pro trying to make a chip from off the green pull the flag?

 

With all the data and statistical analysis done on the PGA you'd think if there was an advantage to leaving the flag in then they would all do it.

[cnosil]

I'm not wrong about more balls going in the hole with the flagstick but the argument re: scoring vs proficiency aside; it's potentially another genteel aspect of the game that I personally will be sad to see on the rubbish pile. Along with things like shaking hands after a round and earnestly helping your competitor search for a lost ball; I feel like tending the flagstick for a playing partner is one of the social contracts that makes the game unique and special. In my opinion, because the majority of the rule updates have arisen solely from an increased pace of play impetus; there will be a myriad of unintended and deleterious consequences to the greater integrity of the game. But I really hope I'm wrong.

 

To play devil's advocate for a moment re: rules being rules...period. What if the governing bodies said from now on everyone can play improved lies? Are you saying that if established as a rule, then it can have no effect on the integrity that was originally envisaged for golf as a competitive activity? Because if we are going back to the stymie days (which for match play would be fine with me btw), playing the ball down on those early links courses meant you had a relatively crappy lie virtually every shot. And since you brought it up, golf equipment (featherie balls, hickory shafts, persimmon heads, etc) was technologically limited and I don't think subsequent advances have any bearing on the essence of the behavior expected from a player.

 

I am however of the opinion that golf is meant to be a grind, not a stroll in the park. And it's the manner in which you behave when things aren't going your way that puts your character on display. Until recently, the rules of golf have been developed to enhance character and grit. The majority of these new updates have arguably been developed with convenience in mind; the ubiquitous expectation of which ethnographic studies have posited as the bane of modern society.

 

 

You make valid points. There are definitely drawbacks to potential rule changes.  I guess I just accept them as the way it will be.  Some changes we will like and some we won't.  Golf should not be easy but with so many people complaining about pace of play,  how do you decide what to change and what not to change? 

[MDGolfHacker]

If the rule is 5 inch holes than that is the rule...

 

****MDGolfHacker raises hand and votes for that rule****

 

ha ha ha.....

 

MDGolfHacker

[DaveP043]

Honest question here.  If basic physics and loads of statistical data say leaving the flag in holes more shots...why does every pro trying to make a chip from off the green pull the flag?

 

With all the data and statistical analysis done on the PGA you'd think if there was an advantage to leaving the flag in then they would all do it.

Many touring pros follow the traditional advice handed down from generations before.  Many still believe that putting is more important than ball-striking, when modern statistics show that to be untrue.

I agree with downlowkey, science says that every collision removes energy.  A ball that might lip out is more likely to be captured if it hits the flagstick.  A ball that's going fast enough to be "rejected" by the flagstick was almost certainly going too fast to be holed anyway, and will probably end up closer if it his the stick.  If your speed is good, the effect of leaving the stick in will be minimal.  If your ball is a little too fast, the flagstick is going to help you in most cases.

[DPattGolf]

Yes a flag will knock out a few that would have gone in with it out (which is 1 of 2 reasons they do it) but over a long sample time more will come out with a better overall outcome with the flag in than they would have with the flag out. The 2nd reason they do it (I'm basing this off of my interactions with college and mini tour players) is because it naturally forces you to become more focused, especially on your pace because you no longer have the pin to act as a backstop if its struck too firm

Honest question here.  If basic physics and loads of statistical data say leaving the flag in holes more shots...why does every pro trying to make a chip from off the green pull the flag?

 

With all the data and statistical analysis done on the PGA you'd think if there was an advantage to leaving the flag in then they would all do it.

[DPattGolf]

Couldn't agree more. I would almost guarantee that we will see the average strokes on the green go down once this is implemented, especially at the amateur level. 

Many touring pros follow the traditional advice handed down from generations before.  Many still believe that putting is more important than ball-striking, when modern statistics show that to be untrue.

I agree with downlowkey, science says that every collision removes energy.  A ball that might lip out is more likely to be captured if it hits the flagstick.  A ball that's going fast enough to be "rejected" by the flagstick was almost certainly going too fast to be holed anyway, and will probably end up closer if it his the stick.  If your speed is good, the effect of leaving the stick in will be minimal.  If your ball is a little too fast, the flagstick is going to help you in most cases.

[downlowkey]

Honest question here.  If basic physics and loads of statistical data say leaving the flag in holes more shots...why does every pro trying to make a chip from off the green pull the flag?

 

With all the data and statistical analysis done on the PGA you'd think if there was an advantage to leaving the flag in then they would all do it.

 

That's a great question. First off "every pro trying to make a chip from off the green pulls the flag" is a hyperbolic statement. When the situation to which you alluded does arise on golf broadcasts, commentators inevitably parrot "when you see a guy pull the flag in these situations, he's trying to make it". The notion that the ball is more likely to go in the hole with the flagstick removed is subsequently erroneously advanced. Pros are always trying to make it; the foundation of the decision to remove the flagstick in these scenarios is overwhelmingly psychological, not physics. Put simply, the act of removing the flagstick helps cement a "hole-it" mindset.

 

To be clear, I am not arguing that the presence of the flagstick offers a statistical hole-out advantage in every scenario. Rather, there are nuanced situational variables that need to be considered when determining potential benefit/detriment. One example: if there is a steady wind, the flagstick will actually lean in the same direction. If the flagstick happens to be leaning toward you, the chances of a perfectly struck shot to the center of the cup being rejected is very real. Thus, anytime the flagstick is leaning toward me, I'm going to pull it. Alternately, if the flagstick happens to be leaning away from me, I'm licking my chops.

 

I don't want to get into a protracted trigonometry discussion about the manner in which unsophisticated spheres in motion react to circular holes as a product of centripetal and gravitational forces. But the hole essentially doesn't exist to a ball carrying an extra 4+ feet of pace. Put a pole in the middle of the hole and it drastically changes the first sentence in this paragraph. A golf ball is 1.68 inches in diameter, multiply that by 2 and we are at 3.36 inches. Add that to the diameter (varying) of the flagstick and you have a situation where almost any ball traveling within a ~4" wide zone inside the hole, results in a close proximity miss regardless of pace. I welcome anyone who would like to argue having the flagstick in the hole doesn't turn prior theories of putting proficiency vs results upside down.

[StrokerAce]

That's a great question. First off "every pro trying to make a chip from off the green pulls the flag" is a hyperbolic statement. When the situation to which you alluded does arise on golf broadcasts, commentators inevitably parrot "when you see a guy pull the flag in these situations, he's trying to make it". The notion that the ball is more likely to go in the hole with the flagstick removed is subsequently erroneously advanced. Pros are always trying to make it; the foundation of the decision to remove the flagstick in these scenarios is overwhelmingly psychological, not physics. Put simply, the act of removing the flagstick helps cement a "hole-it" mindset.

 

To be clear, I am not arguing that the presence of the flagstick offers a statistical hole-out advantage in every scenario. Rather, there are nuanced situational variables that need to be considered when determining potential benefit/detriment. One example: if there is a steady wind, the flagstick will actually lean in the same direction. If the flagstick happens to be leaning toward you, the chances of a perfectly struck shot to the center of the cup being rejected is very real. Thus, anytime the flagstick is leaning toward me, I'm going to pull it. Alternately, if the flagstick happens to be leaning away from me, I'm licking my chops.

 

I don't want to get into a protracted trigonometry discussion about the manner in which unsophisticated spheres in motion react to circular holes as a product of centripetal and gravitational forces. But the hole essentially doesn't exist to a ball carrying an extra 4+ feet of pace. Put a pole in the middle of the hole and it drastically changes the first sentence in this paragraph. A golf ball is 1.68 inches in diameter, multiply that by 2 and we are at 3.36 inches. Add that to the diameter (varying) of the flagstick and you have a situation where almost any ball traveling within a ~4" wide zone inside the hole, results in a close proximity miss regardless of pace. I welcome anyone who would like to argue having the flagstick in the hole doesn't turn prior theories of putting proficiency vs results upside down.

 

You had me at centripetal....     

[cnosil]

, results in a close proximity miss regardless of pace. I welcome anyone who would like to argue having the flagstick in the hole doesn't turn prior theories of putting proficiency vs results upside down.

I will 100% agree with you that leaving the flag in will improve overall putting performance when the ball hits the stick even on glancing strikes. Still not 100% convinced that it will significantly increase holed putts vs taking the flag out when pace related.

[downlowkey]

I will 100% agree with you that leaving the flag in will improve overall putting performance when the ball hits the stick even on glancing strikes. Still not 100% convinced that it will significantly increase holed putts vs taking the flag out when pace related.

 

I feel like MGS could put together a fairly simple and quick testing protocol to provide some unbiased data on this very subject. And when it comes to legal stroke shaving across the entire golfing community, I'm not sure any equipment is more universal than the flagstick. I would certainly be interested to review their data, particularly how flagstick diameter (as you wisely earlier referenced) affects the results.

[DPattGolf]

Might need to run something like this with the college team I coach

I feel like MGS could put together a fairly simple and quick testing protocol to provide some unbiased data on this very subject. And when it comes to legal stroke shaving across the entire golfing community, I'm not sure any equipment is more universal than the flagstick. I would certainly be interested to review their data, particularly how flagstick diameter (as you wisely earlier referenced) affects the results.

[cnosil]

I feel like MGS could put together a fairly simple and quick testing protocol to provide some unbiased data on this very subject. And when it comes to legal stroke shaving across the entire golfing community, I'm not sure any equipment is more universal than the flagstick. I would certainly be interested to review their data, particularly how flagstick diameter (as you wisely earlier referenced) affects the results.

The one study that I found that shows that it improved the number of males used something like a stump meter to roll the ball at the same speed and same line with the flagstick in or out. I don't think the did a lot of distance or grazing hits. And definitely didn't try flagsticks if different widths. Would be interesting to try and do a comprehensive test

[tony@CIC]

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using MyGolfSpy