Second Instant Poll: Would Two Sets Of Rules Make Golf Less Appealing?
The anchoring ban announced yesterday has provoked plenty of emotion, forcing many golfers or fans of the sport to consider big picture questions about what this mean. And thoughts usually come back to the odd situation we find ourselves where rulemaking is often revolving around elite players of the world at a time that their game is pretty healthy and the everyday sport struggles.
I continue to hear from people upset that the anchoring ban will drive themselves or a friend to throw in the towel because anchoring was the one thing that helped them with the yips. And while I'll don't think the numbers are huge, even losing one person to the game over what is mostly an issue for the professional game is of great concern.
Over the last few days at Tiger's World Challenge we've been asking players to talk about bifurcation of the rules and most feel strongly that one set of rules is paramount. Professionals are generally against bifurcation because they are paid well to play clubs and balls that you may buy. I've long felt that even with two sets of rules most golfers are purists and will continue to play a form of the sport that adheres to the tradition of skill. And if people want to go all Happy Gilmore, that's fine too since many people already play a game that does not adhere to the Rules of Golf.
So I have a very basic question for the second poll question, and while it's probably too simplistic because there are so many fan and player elements to this question, I still think it would be interesting to know if you feel bifurcation of the rules between professionals and amateurs would make golf less appealing to you?
Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 09:35 AM
Reader Comments (22)
For the average golfer the anchoring ban doesn't really effect a great deal of people. Amateurs that take up the game rarely start out with a belly putter for economical reasons, so this doesn't hurt them either. Also, at the end of the day the average golfer cares much more about how they hit their full shots then how they putt. The good golfers realize that putting and chipping is how you score, but go watch the average golfer practice. They spend 70% of their time hitting drivers, 25% hitting mid-short irons, and 5% hitting a few putts before their round.
Asking weather bifurcation will lead to less appeal is different than asking "do you support bifurcation."
How much golf do you play with professionals giving you strokes? I'm talking about two sets of rules for amateurs and professionals here.
The anchoring ban is really about golf being played at the highest level, and it seems to me like overkill to include amateur golfers in that ban.
I also agree that the ball is a big problem in the professional game, but because of commercial interests, think that's going to be a tough one to ever reverse.
There should a SINGLE set of rules for anyone who is competing in golf at any level. That also means that in order to establish an accepted handicap, that rounds toward which these count MUST be played according to that same SINGLE set of rules...
And, would your revised handicap system eliminate Equitable Stroke Control too (as it does not appear to meet your strictness requirements)?
If so, I'm not looking forward to playing behind players who are required to hole out with a legitimate score of 15 rather than picking up after reaching their ESC-maximum.
The PGA Tour should be the one's to ban anchoring (they could allow it for the Champions Tour) and, much more importantly, have their own requirements on balls and equipment. They should--on their own--roll back the ball, roll back the size of driver heads, ban hybrids, etc. This would only apply to players playing on their tour events.
The USGA (and R&A) should relinquish a certain amount of control over the game so as to allow the PGA Tour to do so. The US Open (and the Open Championship) could continue to be played with whatever rules and equipment the USGA (and R&A) see fit (i.e., use their rules for everybody else or adopt the the PGA Tour rules for those tournaments or something in between).
In other words, the PGA Tour should take some responsibility to protect the game by ensuring that the *professionals* don't use equipment that makes the game easier, and employ putting methods to avoid the yips. The USGA (and R&A) should allow the Tour to be more restrictive in their own rules, that is give up some control, but only if the PGA Tour acts responsibly in kind.
What we have now is a USGA who act like babies by wanting to control everything under the guise of protecting the integrity of the game, and a PGA Tour who act like babies by shunning responsibility under the guise of growing the game (i.e., making money).
[Getting off soapbox.]
I was in a PGM school in college in which I switched majors but a lot of my friends completed it and are golf professionals. I'd be lying if I said I "regularly" play with professionals, and I never play with touring professionals, but I do play handicapped rounds w club pro's about once a year, if not more.
If Jerry (another thread) is correct that this anchoring ban will lead to a rebellion then I wish it had been imposed before 2006 so the rebellion could have occurred before the USGA/R&A sanctioned the use of distance-measuring devices in an attempt to bring that group of 'rogue golfers' back into the fold.
1. Would this strictly be a professional/amateur distinction? Or would high level amateurs be subject to the same restrictions? Given the miniscule % of players who are professionals, there has to be many more amatuers (especially elite) who hit the ball every bit as far or farther than the pros. So the so called "destruction" of classic courses will still be an issue. Most college golfers are as long or longer than the pros.
2. If it is as simple as a professional/amateur distinction, it would likely hurt the game of elite amateur golf. You would have elite am's having to make a decision on when to switch equipment to get used to it for when they turn pro...and taking a bit to get their distances/ball flight to a expected level.
3. There is something very satisfying about watching professionals hit shots that you know you can hit, especially on courses you've played. When a pro stiffs an iron on a 150 yard shot and you do the same...you are as good as them on that shot. If they do it with different equipment (scaled back), there isn't the same feeling of comparison.
Why? Why is it a "great concern" if the game of golf doesn't grow at the pace the USGA (or PGA, or whoever) wants it to? Frankly I don't know if I want the game to grow that much. I play public golf and could do without the constant hassle of trying to secure a good tee time, or worrying that you'll get paired up with a couple of newbies, etc.
To be honest, the slowdown in growth has been good for me, as more and more courses offer discounts and deals.
Basketball players get a LOT of money for wearing shoes. Baseball players don't.
Basketball shoes can/are used by everyday people. Baseball spikes are not.
Bowling made everyday play easier in an attempt to get more players. didnt work.
But why bother with bifurcation? If only top amateurs and pros are faced with the prospect of having their distance, funky putting strokes and "fun" restricted under traditionalist rules changes, why is there concern about a mass exodus of players from the game? The casual golfers could still play with whatever trampolining drivers and hot balls they want, even if the rules for "everyone" changed. It seems the argument against rolling back the ball is even weaker than I thought!