Question:
Since several people seemed to have misunderstood this point, I will clarify. The USGA is irresponsible simply as a point in fact. A narrow clique of individuals centered at a very small point in the universe; maybe 10% of the land mass of the US, form the decision making heirarchy of the USGA. They are responsible to no one for thier decisions. They simply make them, and a large cadre of staus quoer…go along to get along, defend them. Anyone who makes any noise against them is some sort of heretic. Sounds like a sports authority in the former Soviet Union, and that’s no joke. Thus the problem is that they are irresponsible. As a member, I have no say at all, and I am only valued if I go along…and send a cheque. So who needs them? The rules of play are pretty well established, and all they do is make silly edits about equipment. Rob — RSG-MS RSG Masters http://home.att.net/~janellenrob/RSG-MS.html
Response:
<snipped As a member, I have no say at all, and I am only valued if I go along…and send a cheque. So who needs them? The rules of play are pretty well established, and all they do is make silly edits about equipment. Rob
Rob, I’m not being sarcastic here, but if that is really what you believe, there there is only one option for you. I believe you have already stated that you will not be renewing your membership with the USGA. — Dan Driscoll Member USGA, NCGA RSG FAQ: http://ttsoft.com/thor/rsggolf.html RSG Roll Call http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/driscolld.htm
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snipped As a member, I have no say at all, and I am only valued if I go along…and send a cheque. So who needs them? The rules of play are pretty well established, and all they do is make silly edits about equipment. Rob Rob, I’m not being sarcastic here, but if that is really what you believe, there there is only one option for you. I believe you have already stated that you will not be renewing your membership with the USGA.
I broke my USGA bag tag into two pieces yesterday and threw it into the trash. Rob — RSG-MS RSG Masters http://home.att.net/~janellenrob/RSG-MS.html
Response:
We’ll miss you. — Randy Randy’s personal play space – www.YouGoGolf.com BOSS AUDIO – www.RandyBrownProductions.com "No matter what happens, someone will take it too seriously."
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snipped As a member, I have no say at all, and I am only valued if I go along…and send a cheque. So who needs them? The rules of play are pretty well established, and all they do is make silly edits about equipment. Rob Rob, I’m not being sarcastic here, but if that is really what you believe, there there is only one option for you. I believe you have already stated that you will not be renewing your membership with the USGA. I broke my USGA bag tag into two pieces yesterday and threw it into the trash. Rob — RSG-MS RSG Masters http://home.att.net/~janellenrob/RSG-MS.html
Response:
An interesting claim that isn’t backed by the facts. There are 15 members on the USGA Executive Committee – http://www.usga.org/about/committees/executive_committee_2001.html One from Massachusetts, one from Connecticut, and two from New York. None of whom are officers.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A narrow clique of individuals centered at a very small point in the universe; maybe 10% of the land mass of the US, form the decision making heirarchy of the USGA.
Response:
I’m afraid you have no idea of what you’re talking about. The USGA will not miss you as a member.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Since several people seemed to have misunderstood this point, I will clarify. The USGA is irresponsible simply as a point in fact. A narrow clique of individuals centered at a very small point in the universe; maybe 10% of the land mass of the US, form the decision making heirarchy of the USGA. They are responsible to no one for thier decisions. They simply make them, and a large cadre of staus quoer…go along to get along, defend them. Anyone who makes any noise against them is some sort of heretic. Sounds like a sports authority in the former Soviet Union, and that’s no joke. Thus the problem is that they are irresponsible. As a member, I have no say at all, and I am only valued if I go along…and send a cheque. So who needs them? The rules of play are pretty well established, and all they do is make silly edits about equipment. Rob — RSG-MS RSG Masters http://home.att.net/~janellenrob/RSG-MS.html
Response:
So who needs them? The rules of play are pretty well established, and all they do is make silly edits about equipment.
Robert, A hypothetical case. It’s the last hole of a competition that you are in. You have chipped in from off the green to leave your opponent a twenty foot putt for a half and for you both to go down the nineteenth in a play-off. The tension is unbearable. He walks around, side to side, down on his knees, four practice swings and eventually putts. The ball makes its way to the hole and at the last minute breaks to the right, staying with its diameter 0.2" from the hole. He groans and falls to his knees staying there for about 30 seconds, head in his hands. Eventually he saunters up to the putt and as he gets to the ball it falls into the hole. He claims a half but you, being knowledgeable about the rules, know that he has incurred a penalty shot and thus loses. Do you, being the good guy that you are 1. Accept that he has a half? 2. Insist that you are the winner of the grand Cadillac by quoting rule 16-2? This must have happened some time otherwise the rule would never have been written. And who do you think wrote that rule. None other than the USGA or the R&A whoever. Today the rule on equipment needs altering in the ruling body’s opinion and it is being altered. Why would you agree with one of their declarations and not another? Remember that the rules by which you play are altered every four years and you accept them. So why not this one? — Pat Williams
Response:
Who is claiming that we should not follow the general rules of fair play. The rules already exist, given that, what is the role of the USGA supposed to be? How does a big headed driver make a difference here? Rob – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – So who needs them? The rules of play are pretty well established, and all they do is make silly edits about equipment. Robert, A hypothetical case. It’s the last hole of a competition that you are in. You have chipped in from off the green to leave your opponent a twenty foot putt for a half and for you both to go down the nineteenth in a play-off. The tension is unbearable. He walks around, side to side, down on his knees, four practice swings and eventually putts. The ball makes its way to the hole and at the last minute breaks to the right, staying with its diameter 0.2" from the hole. He groans and falls to his knees staying there for about 30 seconds, head in his hands. Eventually he saunters up to the putt and as he gets to the ball it falls into the hole. He claims a half but you, being knowledgeable about the rules, know that he has incurred a penalty shot and thus loses. Do you, being the good guy that you are 1. Accept that he has a half? 2. Insist that you are the winner of the grand Cadillac by quoting rule 16-2? This must have happened some time otherwise the rule would never have been written. And who do you think wrote that rule. None other than the USGA or the R&A whoever. Today the rule on equipment needs altering in the ruling body’s opinion and it is being altered. Why would you agree with one of their declarations and not another? Remember that the rules by which you play are altered every four years and you accept them. So why not this one? — Pat Williams
– RSG-MS RSG Masters http://home.att.net/~janellenrob/RSG-MS.html
Response:
Who is claiming that we should not follow the general rules of fair play. The rules already exist, given that, what is the role of the USGA supposed to be? How does a big headed driver make a difference here?
WHOSE general rules of fair play? If they’re mine, then fine. Otherwise we need to have a standard against which all efforts may be compared. Ever see two people arguing, both of whom claim to be using common sense? Common sense is often nothing more than "This has benefit for me, can’t you see that?" The same with "general rules of fair play." I don’t think it’s fair, for instance, for rich golfers to be able to afford tons of lessons, the very best equipment, the ability to buy, try, and discard dozens of clubs before settling on the ones that work best for them. But nobody said life was fair. The rules are the rules. If you don’t like ‘em, you don’t have to play by ‘em. Nothing could be more fair than that. Mike – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Rob So who needs them? The rules of play are pretty well established, and all they do is make silly edits about equipment. Robert, A hypothetical case. It’s the last hole of a competition that you are in. You have chipped in from off the green to leave your opponent a twenty foot putt for a half and for you both to go down the nineteenth in a play-off. The tension is unbearable. He walks around, side to side, down on his knees, four practice swings and eventually putts. The ball makes its way to the hole and at the last minute breaks to the right, staying with its diameter 0.2" from the hole. He groans and falls to his knees staying there for about 30 seconds, head in his hands. Eventually he saunters up to the putt and as he gets to the ball it falls into the hole. He claims a half but you, being knowledgeable about the rules, know that he has incurred a penalty shot and thus loses. Do you, being the good guy that you are 1. Accept that he has a half? 2. Insist that you are the winner of the grand Cadillac by quoting rule 16-2? This must have happened some time otherwise the rule would never have been written. And who do you think wrote that rule. None other than the USGA or the R&A whoever. Today the rule on equipment needs altering in the ruling body’s opinion and it is being altered. Why would you agree with one of their declarations and not another? Remember that the rules by which you play are altered every four years and you accept them. So why not this one? — Pat Williams — RSG-MS RSG Masters http://home.att.net/~janellenrob/RSG-MS.html
– 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
Response:
See this is a ruling that would need a desision… becuase 16-2 talks about unreasonable delay. In your scenario, is anything he did unreasonable, considering the circumstances? And it did go in the hole within 10 seconds of when he got there.
Response:
I broke my USGA bag tag into two pieces yesterday and threw it into the trash.
Rob, While I appreciate that you do have concerns over changes to the rules of golf, the rules do in fact change (those published by the R&A at any event), each time there is a revision. I don’t remember what they were in the last revision which came into effect in 2000. One I recall was that a local rule could be enacted as to allow removal of stones from bunkers in the same way trash and the like are able to be moved. There have been far more significant changes in other revisions. Stymies come to mind. Perhaps I’m missing the point here, but golf is an evolving game. Courses change, equipment changes even the rules do change. Every association as far as I’m aware sets it’s own conditions of play for tournaments they sanction. I guess it comes down to you having the choice to play those sanctioned events under the conditions they stipulate or don’t play in them. Brett
Response:
writes See this is a ruling that would need a desision… becuase 16-2 talks about unreasonable delay. In your scenario, is anything he did unreasonable, considering the circumstances? And it did go in the hole within 10 seconds of when he got there.
Matt, Yes. Thirty seconds on the deck with his head in his hands is "unreasonable delay" 
. No decision is needed. Imagine each fourball on each green and each player held his head for 30 seconds after each putt. (with two putts maximum) That is four minutes per hole per fourball with just head holding. (and about 10 hours per round) {and these are good putters with only 36 total each. } You cannot include "ten seconds after" and leave out the "delay" just because it suits an argument to do so. Look at the answer to 16-2/2 to see that the term "reasonable time" is used. Regards — Pat Williams
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – writes See this is a ruling that would need a desision… becuase 16-2 talks about unreasonable delay. In your scenario, is anything he did unreasonable, considering the circumstances? And it did go in the hole within 10 seconds of when he got there. Matt, Yes. Thirty seconds on the deck with his head in his hands is "unreasonable delay" . No decision is needed. Imagine each fourball on each green and each player held his head for 30 seconds after each putt. (with two putts maximum) That is four minutes per hole per fourball with just head holding. (and about 10 hours per round) {and these are good putters with only 36 total each. }
It will hardly happen 36 times. According to the scenario, it was the 18th hole, putt for the halve. It can only happen 4 times, for a total 2:00 per round.
Response:
I dont think the fact that the USGA sets a standard known as rules is really the question. I play by the rules and will continue to do so. The problem has arisen because they are changing the rules retroactively. My driver which was deemed conforming just last year will probably be deemed non-conforming this year. In actual fact there is nothing to keep them from ruling that graphite shafts are now illegal. Or cavity backs. Or ProV1’s. Or shoes with soft spikes. Take your pick. tom Brett wrote…Perhaps I’m missing the point here, but golf is an evolving
game. Courses – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -change, equipment changes even the rules do change. Every association as far as I’m aware sets it’s own conditions of play for tournaments they sanction. I guess it comes down to you having the choice to play those sanctioned events under the conditions they stipulate or don’t play in them. Brett
Response:
I dont think the fact that the USGA sets a standard known as rules is really the question. I play by the rules and will continue to do so. The problem has arisen because they are changing the rules retroactively.
Every four years some rules are changed, always retroactively!!!! What is the difference with this decision. ( And I have a brand new 400cc never yet been hit) The first rule of golf ever written was " You must tee your ball within a club length of the hole". How would you feel if that hadn’t been changed retroactively and all the Sunday hackers were driving off from the middle of your beautiful greens? — Pat Williams
Response:
Pat, if you had read the rest of my post you would see that my beef is that a piece of equipment that was just previously tested and judged to be conforming, is going to now be deemed non-conforming. That is different than adjusting the rules of play every four years. Like I had written in my previous post, what would you think of them now outlawing graphite? Or ProV1’s? They obviously did a 180 on this matter and hoped nobody would notice. Thier lack of foresight in this matter makes them look like like amateurs. tom Pat wrote….Every four years some rules are changed, always retroactively!!!!
What – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -is the difference with this decision. ( And I have a brand new 400cc never yet been hit) The first rule of golf ever written was " You must tee your ball within a club length of the hole". How would you feel if that hadn’t been changed retroactively and all the Sunday hackers were driving off from the middle of your beautiful greens? — Pat Williams
Response:
I dont think the fact that the USGA sets a standard known as rules is really the question. I play by the rules and will continue to do so. The problem has arisen because they are changing the rules retroactively. Every four years some rules are changed, always retroactively!!!! What is the difference with this decision. ( And I have a brand new 400cc never yet been hit)
The difference is that the purchase of driver is more permanent than a round of golf. The first rule of golf ever written was " You must tee your ball within a club length of the hole". How would you feel if that hadn’t been changed retroactively and all the Sunday hackers were driving off from the middle of your beautiful greens?
Well, since the greens wouldn’t be beautiful I wouldn’t care all that much. :) — –dph (dph AT luckytrout DOT com)
Response:
DPH < writes: I dont think the fact that the USGA sets a standard known as rules is really the question. I play by the rules and will continue to do so. The problem has arisen because they are changing the rules retroactively. Every four years some rules are changed, always retroactively!!!! What is the difference with this decision. ( And I have a brand new 400cc never yet been hit) The difference is that the purchase of driver is more permanent than a round of golf.
Yes, but I’ll bet almost every owner of an Integra 400cc or other driver that will be made illegal by this ruling has spent more money on a single round of golf (at least once) than they spent for the driver! When I consider what my dad and I spent to visit Scotland last summer the cost of a bagful of Callaway ERC II drivers doesn’t even compare — He who laughs last thinks slowest.
Response:
Today the rule on equipment needs altering in the ruling body’s opinion and it is being altered. Why would you agree with one of their declarations and not another? Remember that the rules by which you play are altered every four years and you accept them. So why not this one?
The counter to this line of thinking would go something like this: The boys in Far Hills, NJ got a little too drunk at this year’s Christmas party and came up with this new rule: All shots must now be hit with the same club, a 1984 Titleist Tour Model 5-iron. Pretty stupid, huh? Now if such a ruling did come down from Far Hills, what would be the effect? Would everyone get rid of their current clubs and search EBAY for all the 1984 Titleist Tour Model 5-irons they could find? Or would everyone just ignore the USGA for making such a ridiculous ruling and keep playing the game the way they want to? The point being that the more silly rulings the USGA makes, the less relevant they become. Or to paraphrase Frostback, "We already have the rules. Why do we need the USGA?"
Response:
Yes, but I’ll bet almost every owner of an Integra 400cc or other driver that will be made illegal by this ruling has spent more money on a single round of golf (at least once) than they spent for the driver!
I wonder how long most of those players had their previous driver? I bet lots of them buy new drivers every 3 years anyway!
Response:
Yes, but I’ll bet almost every owner of an Integra 400cc or other driver that will be made illegal by this ruling has spent more money on a single round of golf (at least once) than they spent for the driver!
Not even close in my case. I’ve got around $90 into my driver and the most I’ve ever paid for a round of golf is less than $25. One of these days I’d like to play LaCantera or The Quarry in San Antonio, but until then I’m happy to represent the bottom strata of green fee spenders. Dave Clary/Corpus Christi,TX http://home.stx.rr.com/dclary RSG Roll Call http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/claryd.htm
Response:
I think the USGA was irresponsible in this case.They should have put the limits on the clubs a long time ago.Oh well better late than never. Hank Swanson
Response:
The counter to this line of thinking would go something like this: The boys in Far Hills, NJ got a little too drunk at this year’s Christmas party and came up with this new rule: All shots must now be hit with the same club, a 1984 Titleist Tour Model 5-iron.
You have gone somewhat over the top saying that all golfers are to play with only one club. The USGA are leaving the options open for about 157 metal drivers all with cc’s of less than 385. And then all of the remainder for other shots! Not just one club. Pretty stupid, huh?
Yes, I would agree that one club only would be pretty stupid. Now if such a ruling did come down from Far Hills, what would be the effect? Would everyone get rid of their current clubs and search EBAY for all the 1984 Titleist Tour Model 5-irons they could find? Or would everyone just ignore the USGA for making such a ridiculous ruling and keep playing the game the way they want to?
If they did make such a ruling then most people would certainly ignore it. But then it is not likely. Remember this 5 iron ruling is your hypothetical ruling, not the USGA’s! The point being that the more silly rulings the USGA makes, the less relevant they become.
How about quoting some of the more inane rulings that the USGA have come out with that makes them less relevant other than this? Or to paraphrase Frostback, "We already have the rules. Why do we need the USGA?"
Look on the front of their little book. You will find that the rules that you have belong to the USGA already not yourself or Frostback. I know that like myself you also have one of the banned-to-be ones. But we will both have to live with it or never play in another competition again. We both have the option to choose. Regards. — Pat Williams
Response:
I know that like myself you also have one of the banned-to-be ones. But we will both have to live with it or never play in another competition again. We both have the option to choose.
No, my current Clanger is conforming as far as I can tell. Of course, it’s kinda hard to know without a conforming list like they have for the balls. That’s another stupid part of the proposed ruling. I can continue to hit my currently-conforming 525cc Clanger while someone else can’t hit a newer 390cc model that might come out next year.
Response:
The point being that the more silly rulings the USGA makes, the less relevant they become. How about quoting some of the more inane rulings that the USGA have come out with that makes them less relevant other than this?
The ERCII debacle for one. It didn’t apply to me but for those who still hit one, the USGA certainly doesn’t matter. Also, the whole flap over square grooves was much ado about nothing. The USGA got all tangled up over millimeters of groove measurements and never EVER proved that these grooves made the game easier to play.