There's been quite a few effort put forth these days to try to make golf more accessible to beginners, and I wager most of you have got heard approximately GC's contemporary contribution to the efforts. It's referred to as "Relaxed Rules Golf" and it's stirred up a huge range of emotions. Tweets to GC have ranged from praise to accusations of "you are coaching people to cheat." And to kick off their efforts, GC sponsored a "Relaxed Rules" Tournament on Tuesday, to get a few feedback at once from the golfers worried.
Geoff Shackelford published his very own take at the idea closing Friday. He has combined emotions at the problem as properly, despite the fact that he simply falls on the aspect of simplifying matters. For those of you who may have ignored it, right here are the 7 regulations that make up "Relaxed Rules Golf":
- Maximum score is double par
- Penalties are all 1 stroke
- Limit ball search to 2 minutes
- Improve unfortunate lies
- Conceded putts allowed
- No equipment restrictions
- Use common sense
Personally, I assume every side of the controversy has some advantage. Today I thought I'd have a look at "Relaxed Rules Golf" (hereafter referred to as RRG) and a number of the issues raised by means of the concept. There are both pluses and minuses that have to be taken under consideration.
As a whole lot as I hate to do it, I must start by using pointing out how blind we golfers tend to be to the shortcomings of our sport. Golf has traditionally been one of the ultimate holdouts in terms of discrimination, whether or not it's been race- or gender-oriented. We are so proud of how our game relies upon at the character of the people involved to call penalties on themselves on the course, but we absolutely ignore how we demean players who are not "like us," which is simply as lots a rely of character but isn't always legislated by means of the Rules.
I hear a number of this on this regulations debate. We dangle on to the "letter of the regulation" (or "letter of the Rules," in case you please) even as ignoring the more reason of golfing, that is to have amusing competing with buddies. We want policies for positive -- policies are how we outline a level playing field for all contributors -- however do they need to be as complicated as they have got turn out to be? This is the issue.
When weekend athletes play sports, unless they are playing in a tournament -- and this is an important aspect of these RRG rules -- they rarely play strictly by the official rules. You won't see a 3-on-3 basketball game where a "free path" foul gets called. (With all apologies to golfers who think they are the only athletes to call fouls on themselves, that is only true in tournaments. Most weekend athletes in other sports call their own fouls as well; it's just that they play by relaxed rules that ignore nitpicky fouls.)
The Rules of Golf recognize that there is more than one way to play golf. For example, they recognize stroke play, match play, and Stableford scoring systems. Stroke play counts every stroke; match play counts only holes won or lost (which allows it to use Rule 5 of RRG), and Stableford awards points (which allows it to use a rule similar to Rule #1 of RRG). So the Rules of Golf themselves set a precedent: In some forms of golf we don't need to count every single stroke, even though rules are provided that could be used to regulate those strokes.
Why shouldn't we have a form of golf with extremely simplified rules for recreational play? The word recreational is extremely important here. While GC's tournament on Tuesday may be useful for gaining feedback about RRG, ultimately a GGC tournament is a contradiction of terms. By definition, each foursome is playing by a slightly different set of rules, so there can be no legitimate comparison of their scores! Rules exist for the purpose of creating a level playing ground for all the participants, and RRG rules are simply not robust enough to support tournament play. For an individual foursome, RRG might be a sensible compromise... especially since most weekend foursomes play similar rules already.
HOWEVER, there is one thing of RRG which I haven't heard discussed very a lot but, however it desires to be. (In fairness, Charlie Rymer, considered one of GC's most vocal supporters of RRG, referred to this in brief Tuesday morning but I doubt that it registered on maximum listeners.) This one component of golf isn't the same as almost another sport and it could affect even person leisure play.
Namely, how does RRG affect a player's handicap?
To be blunt, if you plan to turn in a score that will affect your handicap, you simply can't do it under RRG rules. If you do, you are artificially lowering your handicap. It may look good when you brag to your friends, but it'll bite you in the butt when you enter a tournament! Your handicap will be much lower under RRG rules than it would be under the official Rules of Golf, and you'll be robbing yourself of strokes that you're entitled to claim. The better your game is, the less RRG will affect your handicap -- after all, most of the RRG rules affect bad shots -- but it will adversely affect your handicap all the same.
Although most golfers do not reflect onconsideration on it like this, your handicap is the manner the legitimate Rules catch up on your terrible and penalty shots. For you skeptics obtainable, RRG does the same issue. The difference is that RRG compensates only on this round, with this foursome, in casual play; your handicap compensates in EVERY spherical, in EVERY foursome, in opposition as well as casual play. If you want to build a handicap, RRG is NOT YOUR FRIEND.
But for casual rounds, practice rounds, novices gaining knowledge of the way to hit the ball, and better players trying to study new shots at the path, RRG makes a number of feel. It permits you circulate along at a good pace which, when you're focused on getting higher and not on winning some thing, may be better on your mind-set and assist you get better quicker.
I believe Geoff Shackelford. I'd want to see "while viable, play it because it lies" retained as the number one rule in RRG due to the fact it truly is the simple concept in the game. But simplifying the penalties and such in order that even new gamers may want to stroll as much as a ball in a threat and go "Oh, I recognise what to do" could be a massive boost to the sport for us all.
[ UPDATE: Wednesday we learned that GC gave out prizes at their tournament... but they weren't based on score. Instead, they gave prizes for the best suggestions to improve RRG. It's clear they understand the limitations of what they're proposing. You have to give them high marks for that!]
0 comments