Rules of Golf Amendment 15

[Strick]

I know somewhere in the organization that governs golf there is the word ANCIENT! The brilliant engineers that bring us all these technological advancements in equipment must really hate that number 14 as well as the manufacturers that employ them. As a player we have so many clubs to choose from each with it's own practical uses yet we are bound by this number 14. Would 15 really somehow tarnish the game we love? Please lend your views.

[FreakOfNature]

I know somewhere in the organization that governs golf there is the word ANCIENT! The brilliant engineers that bring us all these technological advancements in equipment must really hate that number 14 as well as the manufacturers that employ them. As a player we have so many clubs to choose from each with it's own practical uses yet we are bound by this number 14. Would 15 really somehow tarnish the game we love? Please lend your views.

If I'm not mistaken, the 14 club rule was put in place to protect caddies from burdensome loads which were quite common back before the rule was in place - often caddies would be hauling as many as THIRTY clubs around the course for their respective players. I feel that if a player wishes to have more than 14 clubs in the bag, they should have to CARRY that bag themselves. You want 'em, you lug 'em.


To be honest, even 14 clubs is too many in my book. It takes the finesse and creativity out of the game and makes it more difficult to separate the "players" from the "posers". A true "player" can hit shots that aren't stock, whereas a "poser" has a club that hits that shot for them, without adjustment. I like versatile clubs - so I don't have to lug so much weight around. I'd be happy with a ten club rule if it were ever to come about. Choosing your clubs would require a lot more attention to detail if we weren't permitted to carry so many. I doubt that a lot of the game's top players would still be where they are today if it weren't for the fact that they don't have to display any talent by hitting a short swing 7-iron to do what an 8 iron does with a stock swing.

Talent is being able to hit more shots with less clubs. PERIOD.





FON

[Not a hacker]

Good post FON.

Peter Thompson has taken it one step further and advocates distance markers being taken from sprinkler heads on courses. He is of the opinion that real golfers should be able to judge the distance with their eye, and that golfers these days have it too easy with exact yardages for every shot.

Not sure if I would go that far, but it sure would make it interesting if you had to judge distances without on course markers.

I think your idea of reducing the number of clubs to 10 would certainly seperate the wheat from the chaf on the tour. I think as with most rule changes though it would benefit the best players the most and would make Tiger even more unbeatable than he is now.

[FreakOfNature]

Good post FON.

Peter Thompson has taken it one step further and advocates distance markers being taken from sprinkler heads on courses. He is of the opinion that real golfers should be able to judge the distance with their eye, and that golfers these days have it too easy with exact yardages for every shot.

Not sure if I would go that far, but it sure would make it interesting if you had to judge distances without on course markers.

I think your idea of reducing the number of clubs to 10 would certainly seperate the wheat from the chaf on the tour. I think as with most rule changes though it would benefit the best players the most and would make Tiger even more unbeatable than he is now.

Less clubs in the bag would UNDOUBTEDLY give the great players and ballstrikers such as Tiger even more of an advantage. The key is that it would also be good for golf - and here's why.

Look at the changes the USGA, R&A, et al... have been making to tournament venues in recent years. Predominantly, they lengthen the course - because everything but the long bomb is likely a given for most Tour players. They all hit great iron shots, they all have magnificent short games, they can all for the mostpart hit their intended targets off the tee, so the only means they had left of increasing the difficulty of these tournaments (and thus overall score) was to lengthen the holes and grow the rough deep, tighten the fairways at *average* Tour distance, and encourage players to take more risks, with greater penalty. Longer courses means more grass to take care of, larger parcels of land required to initially purchase upon which to build the course, thus steeper fees for members and green-fee players alike - and an overall lack of growth in the game due to the prohibitive prerequisite costs of getting started in golf. Not good for the game - as anyone can plainly see.

All the while the whole issue of "Tiger-proofing" and restoring integrity to par were being addressed in this manner, the true solution to the problem was sitting right under their noses, and wouldn't have to cost the average golfer a cent, unlike the solutions they chose to employ. Less clubs means less cost, more affordable sets of clubs, and courses do not need to be lengthened or have the rough grow in to unreasonable levels to present a challenge. The better player will have to "finesse" some shots due to the lack of club options, and par once again regains the integrity it once had with far less players possessing the ability to shoot low scores regularly, due to the increased demand to improvise a decent shot - to manufacture something other than "standard". This alone is the solution to restoring the integrity of par, and the challenge and spirit of this game - in the face of any technological advances we've recently made. Since when does SGI technology help you hit a shot which is in-between clubs? Therein is where the true talent in golf will reveal itself.





FON

[bladeduffer]

FON,

You get my vote as the next PGA Commisioner. That was brilliant.



bd

[fred3]

Like most rules it was just a decision made at a point in time where it seemed like the thing to do. I have no problem with the 14 club rule and can only imagine that you have particular wedge or possibly a utility club that you'd like to carry. Go ahead and carry your 15th club in anything except sanctioned play. Just like you there are bound to be lots of folks who could easily carry 16, 17, 18 or more clubs so why stop at 15? Just because that's all you require?

It's a rule we can live with. Now the stroke and distance rule........

[Omen2]

10 clubs... good idea but not great

11 should be the number

8 irons

1 lofted wedge

1 wood

1 putter

Omen

....good to know fred is still alive

[tommy_chunk]

I like to walk and don't have the luxury of having a caddy to carry my bag. I say the fewer the clubs the better.

Have any of you ever played the 3 club game? That can be alot of fun!

[Horseballs]

Have any of you ever played the 3 club game? That can be alot of fun!

Yeah, it's fun as hell. We do 2 clubs + putter. That REALLY separates the playas from the pretenders. Technical guys struggle and feel players dominate.

[Strick]

FON, I am well satisfied with the justifications offered by you and others for the 14 club limit. However, taking it to 10 is clearly an extremist view. The greatest threat to par on the PGA or your home course is not posed by the number of clubs in the bag, but rather by the smoothness of the surface we putt on in this era. If you really want to defend par or slow down Tiger just slow down the greens to what Palmer and his predecessors played on. That would also address the cost issues you were so concerned with. I play to a 2 on quick bentgrass greens in Montana. I play to a 6 on shaggy bermuda on my poorly equipped municipal course in Florida, which is much more representative of the Palmer era greens. I prefer quick greens because I prefer to score as low as possible but clearly speed of greens effect scoring more than anything else. It has been said "If Tiger played one round on my home course, he would buy it and put cows on it"!

[Horseballs]

FON, I am well satisfied with the justifications offered by you and others for the 14 club limit. However, taking it to 10 is clearly an extremist view. The greatest threat to par on the PGA or your home course is not posed by the number of clubs in the bag, but rather by the smoothness of the surface we putt on in this era. If you really want to defend par or slow down Tiger just slow down the greens to what Palmer and his predecessors played on. That would also address the cost issues you were so concerned with. I play to a 2 on quick bentgrass greens in Montana. I play to a 6 on shaggy bermuda on my poorly equipped municipal course in Florida, which is much more representative of the Palmer era greens. I prefer quick greens because I prefer to score as low as possible but clearly speed of greens effect scoring more than anything else. It has been said "If Tiger played one round on my home course, he would buy it and put cows on it"!

I have to disagree. Why would you want to defend par with what basically amounts to luck?
I personally don't see a problem with the club limit at 14, but I'm also not threatening the course record on a daily basis. The current limit seems arbitrary to me, but I wouldn't quit the game if the limit dropped by a few clubs. My first set of clubs had a 3 wood, 5 wood, odd numbered irons, a pitching wedge and putter. That's 8 clubs.
There is no way equipment manufacturers would stand for a change to 10 clubs.

[FreakOfNature]

FON, I am well satisfied with the justifications offered by you and others for the 14 club limit. However, taking it to 10 is clearly an extremist view. The greatest threat to par on the PGA or your home course is not posed by the number of clubs in the bag, but rather by the smoothness of the surface we putt on in this era. If you really want to defend par or slow down Tiger just slow down the greens to what Palmer and his predecessors played on. That would also address the cost issues you were so concerned with. I play to a 2 on quick bentgrass greens in Montana. I play to a 6 on shaggy bermuda on my poorly equipped municipal course in Florida, which is much more representative of the Palmer era greens. I prefer quick greens because I prefer to score as low as possible but clearly speed of greens effect scoring more than anything else. It has been said "If Tiger played one round on my home course, he would buy it and put cows on it"!

I have to strongly disagree with you about green speed being the real issue. It's not like Palmer, Player, Nicklaus, Hogan, Snead, Sarazen, Jones... won majors solely because they were great putters - these are the names of the greatest ball strikers of their respective eras. No matter how you set up the greens - fast or slow - everyone still plays on an even playing field. They're just as slow or fast for everyone - course conditions are relatively easy to adapt to. I see no logical argument which would support letting greens get shaggy as saving anyone any money on a round of golf (the mower cuts the same area, uses the same amount of gas to do it, regardless of the height of the grass), nor do I see it increasing the difficulty of the game for the players who are MOST CAPABLE of shooting low scores. It doesn't do anything to separate the sheep from the goats (putting is the "great equalizer" in golf - something a weekend hacker can learn to do just as well as a low capper), and it doesn't save the average golfer two red cents - granted it won't cost any MORE, but it won't have an impact on scores. If it ain't broken - don't fix it.




Now, let's go back and look at what lengthening a course means in the grand scheme of things - this is the current approach to protecting par and making a course more difficult for pros.

1. You need more land to build bigger courses. Land costs money, both to purchase, and to maintain. More grass means more fertilizer, more grounds crew, more gas or electricity used to both mow that grass and drive the player's cart around the loop. All of these things contribute to the cost of a round of golf, or a membership. Someone has to pay for it, and the burden of the cost of golf would be better spread out more thinly over a greater number of players, so nobody has to take as large of a hit to the wallet. More players will end up playing more often, resulting in less down time for the course where the starter may be just sitting around twiddling thumbs because they have nobody to send off. The last thing golf needs right now is to become more expensive. Think about the reality of what would happen if every single club in North America unanimously decided it would be a good idea to just expand the old courses and build new ones bigger. It's not economically feasable, and it would cost an astronomical amount on top of what we already pay. This is already happening, and it is currently hurting enrollment in the game.

2. Lengthening a course does little more than hand the long hitter even more of an advantage. Since when is favoring power going to settle the issue of which player is better than the rest? A long hitter will score the same on a long course as a short one - but a short hitter will inevitably score worse on a long layout than a short one, just because they can't reach more of the targets. The people who believe this is good for the game are retards for thinking that forcing skilled and accurate finesse players who lack distance to hit approaches from farther away from the green is equalizing and fair. Current course setups do NOT favor the BEST player, they favor the best player WITH POWER. Now we have square headed super-forgiving drivers with max COR because the need to be able to bomb it isn't going away.

So, we've hurt the cost of the game, biased the competetive side towards long hitters, and par is still being assaulted. Looks like we're really solving that problem...

The only way to both lower these resultant costs of the game to make it more accessible to a broader spectrum of potential income, and to better contest the skills of the players, is to further reduce the number of clubs in the bag. It takes a heck of a lot more skill to hit more than just "stock" shots, and even us amateur hacks aren't being required to do that to play good golf. You just measure, pull the stick that puts you to your intended spot, let it rip and know that the miniscule yardage gaps in your set will conceal any lack of ability to be able to MANUFACTURE a UNIQUE shot, with a club that isn't PERFECTLY suited to hitting the shot with a stock swing. This is how you tell a player with talent from a player who is without talent. By decreasing the number of clubs we're allowed to carry, we no longer will need to create 700 yard, par 6's, 500 yard par 4's, 250 yard par 3's. It eliminates a LOT of the cost of the game, and it REALLY DOES allow the players with the most talent to rise above the floggers who are incapable of playing golf with any sort of finesse.

It should be obvious by now that this isn't a problem that will be fixed by throwing more money at it. The LAST thing golf needs right now is to become even MORE prohibitively expensive.





FON

[Kiwi Player]

2. Lengthening a course does little more than hand the long hitter even more of an advantage. Since when is favoring power going to settle the issue of which player is better than the rest? A long hitter will score the same on a long course as a short one - but a short hitter will inevitably score worse on a long layout than a short one, just because they can't reach more of the targets. The people who believe this is good for the game are retards for thinking that forcing skilled and accurate finesse players who lack distance to hit approaches from farther away from the green is equalizing and fair. Current course setups do NOT favor the BEST player, they favor the best player WITH POWER. Now we have square headed super-forgiving drivers with max COR because the need to be able to bomb it isn't going away.

FON

FON great post. That is an interesting point of view but how is reducing the number of clubs to 10 going to disadvantage the long hitter?

The Driver would still be the first club in the bag. In fact if I had to play with 10 clubs (which I often do on a lazy Sunday afternoon) I would carry the following:

Driver
3 wood
3 iron hybrid
5, 7, 9 irons
Pitching Wedge
Gap Wedge
Sand Wedge
Putter

A long hitter would still be capable of reaching Par 5's with the 3 wood or hybrid and still has three wedges. He might just need to choke down on a 5 iron or muscle a 7 iron when between clubs but other than that I don't see how a long hitter would be seriously disadvantaged with this setup.

However I await your explanation.

Kiwi

[MTibbo]

Cmon, 3 irons, 3 wedges??

[Kiwi Player]

Cmon, 3 irons, 3 wedges??

Well the Pitching Wedge is part of the iron set. Swap the hybrid for a 3 iron. There you have 5 irons.

Tell me what you would carry if you were restricted to 10 clubs?

[Horseballs]

I'd go with
Driver
4 Wood
3 iron
5 iron
7 iron
9 iron
PW
54 degree wedge
58 degree wedge
Putter

Pretty similar to Kiwi. I'm guessing my scores wouldn't change much if at all with this bag.

[newfie_golfer]

This is a good discussion
Id go with
Driver
19* hybrid
5
7
8
9
PW
52*
58*
Putter

[Omen2]

driver
3
5
7
9
55*
putter

7 clubs and i think i could shoot the same scores or even better...
choke down an inch to 1.5" on any of the irons and they become similar to the missing one beneath them: i.e. choke down 3 = 4i, etc.

I took odd because it gives me my two favorite irons: 7 and 9

Omen

[The Purist]

I believe all courses that hold PGA tour events use rollers on their greens. This makes the greens faster and gives the ball a truer roll. That adds to the cost of upkeep on these courses, and it requires the greens to be flatter. Having less contours and undulations on the greens probably does make it a little easier on the pros than back in the day.

I agree with you a 100% on the lengthening and narrowing of courses. It definitely favors a player with power. Power should definitely be a factor, but strategy (think 18th at Carnoustie), nerves (17th at TPC Sawgrass), and shot making ability (18th at Olympic Club Lake Course) should be just as important.

[Omen2]

all qualities that describe my game... well except for the power part...

Omen, Carnoustie strategy, Sawgrass nerves, and Olympic club shot shaping.

[bladeduffer]

3 wood - long enough off the tee, easier off the deck so it's control and workability that I look for.
2i
3i
5i
7i
9i
PW
56SW
60SW
Putter


bd

[Omen2]

i can hit the driver off the deck.... thanks again 2i.

Omen

[Kiwi Player]

I'd go with
Driver
4 Wood
3 iron
5 iron
7 iron
9 iron
PW
54 degree wedge
58 degree wedge
Putter

Pretty similar to Kiwi. I'm guessing my scores wouldn't change much if at all with this bag.

Yeah basically you're halving the bag at the longer end of the set which would leave you with 7-8 clubs and as you're allowed 10 you add a couple more scoring clubs, i.e. wedges.

[The Purist]

For 10:
Driver
15* f
19* f
4 iron
6 iron
7 iron
8 iron
PW
56*w
Putter

For 7 clubs:
Driver
17* f
4i
6i
8i
51*w
Putter

[FreakOfNature]

FON great post. That is an interesting point of view but how is reducing the number of clubs to 10 going to disadvantage the long hitter?

The Driver would still be the first club in the bag. In fact if I had to play with 10 clubs (which I often do on a lazy Sunday afternoon) I would carry the following:

Driver
3 wood
3 iron hybrid
5, 7, 9 irons
Pitching Wedge
Gap Wedge
Sand Wedge
Putter

A long hitter would still be capable of reaching Par 5's with the 3 wood or hybrid and still has three wedges. He might just need to choke down on a 5 iron or muscle a 7 iron when between clubs but other than that I don't see how a long hitter would be seriously disadvantaged with this setup.

However I await your explanation.

Kiwi

Less clubs doesn't necessarily guarantee to disadvantage the long hitter - that's not really the point (the point is to better reward the best ball strikers and shotmakers), but the choice of clubs they decide to bag for any specific round will have to be thought out much more carefully - such as your example. No even numbered irons - that will create larger gaps that require more finesse to get approach shots close enough to the hole to score, which I believe would lessen the scoring gap between shorter hitting finesse players and the pure "bomb & gouge" type players. If you look at the shorter hitters in the pro game, this is where you find a LOT of the true finesse players. They wouldn't still be able to top ten on a regular basis on long courses if they couldn't hit greens with long irons. Having larger gaps between their clubs would most likely work more in their favor than in favor of the long hitter, thus somewhat neutralizing the scoring advantage which length currently provides. I think it would place the premium back on accuracy, especially on approach shots.

It doesn't matter if you're a long hitter or a short hitter - the cream will rise to the top based on creativity and the ability to improvise approach shots with clubs that will likely more often than not be less than *perfectly* suited to the task. You also have to consider the common misconception that long hitters spray the ball everywhere, just by the virtue that they are long. There are a lot of long hitters that can pick a stripe and land on it - but look at the choices they would have to make once they get in the fairway at a yardage that would be perfect for a 6 iron. Long hitters inherently already have large gaps between clubs (ask me how I know this ), and reducing the number of clubs would widen many of those gaps even more. Just to use myself as an example - I hit a 5 iron about 215, and hit a 7 iron about 185. My 6 iron is my 200 club. Without the 6 iron, I have a 30 yard gap. A shorter hitter who hits a 5 iron 180, probably hits a 7 iron about 165. That's only a 15 yard gap - and I think we would all agree that it takes more finesse to cover a 30 yard gap than a 15 yard gap. Personally, if I were limited to 10 clubs, I leave the 3,4, and 6 irons out of the bag and keep the rest of what I already have with no changes. I prefer a more "graduated" order to my gaps anyway, with shorter gaps for shorter shots, and larger gaps in the long game.

So in summary, I feel that removing a few clubs would probably disadvantage the long hitters who simply aren't as skilled at hitting finesse shots, effectively thinning out the top of the field and allowing the shorter hitters to maintain a greater competitive advantage than they have currently. Tiger would likely benefit the most from this however, as he is already long, and most certainly the best finesse player on tour. That gap would get a bit wider - and I see nothing wrong with that. If the purpose of competition is to determine who the best player is on any given day, why would we want to make it harder for the best player to win? It should be harder for floggers to fluke their way to victory than it is now. The reality is that the playing field isn't NEARLY as level as the current state of the game makes it appear.

That's my explanation.




FON

[Not a hacker]

Great posts FON, I agree totally with your logic on limiting the number of clubs.

But course set up and lengthening courses isn't necessarily the only answer to the technology problem. Craig Parry had an intersting twist on course set up. He advocates shortening the rough so the ball actually runs further, but also further into trouble for misses. It makes great sense. Nobody likes seeing pros chopping wedges sideways out of deep rough. It does nothing to seperate the shotmakers from the rest, and puts too high a premium on accuracy from the tee. But if the ball ran off the fairways and into trees etc, the recovery shot comes back inot play and the truly great shot makers come back into their own. How much more exciting would it be if players had the chance to go for high risk shots at the green from off the fairways instead of chopping sideways every time. The cream would definitely rise to the top and the pros nerve and shot repertoire would be thoroughly tested.

I also think making courses longer is not the way to go. Courses should include more short par 4's, that are reachable with a driver, but are fraught with danger if missed. Escpecially over the closing holes. It would bring the old course strategy of risk and reward back into play. Again it would be much more exciting watching pros pull out driver on short par 4's chasing birdie and eagle down the strecth of a major, than being forced to go for safe pars on long par 4's with driver mid iron to middle of the green and two putts. It would challenge the pros decision making and shot making abilities.

[FreakOfNature]

Great posts FON, I agree totally with your logic on limiting the number of clubs.

But course set up and lengthening courses isn't necessarily the only answer to the technology problem. Craig Parry had an intersting twist on course set up. He advocates shortening the rough so the ball actually runs further, but also further into trouble for misses. It makes great sense. Nobody likes seeing pros chopping wedges sideways out of deep rough. It does nothing to seperate the shotmakers from the rest, and puts too high a premium on accuracy from the tee. But if the ball ran off the fairways and into trees etc, the recovery shot comes back inot play and the truly great shot makers come back into their own. How much more exciting would it be if players had the chance to go for high risk shots at the green from off the fairways instead of chopping sideways every time. The cream would definitely rise to the top and the pros nerve and shot repertoire would be thoroughly tested.

I also think making courses longer is not the way to go. Courses should include more short par 4's, that are reachable with a driver, but are fraught with danger if missed. Escpecially over the closing holes. It would bring the old course strategy of risk and reward back into play. Again it would be much more exciting watching pros pull out driver on short par 4's chasing birdie and eagle down the strecth of a major, than being forced to go for safe pars on long par 4's with driver mid iron to middle of the green and two putts. It would challenge the pros decision making and shot making abilities.

I agree completely with Parry's idea - the way it is now you get punished just as much for missing by a foot as a mile. They are certainly both not mistakes of EQUAL magnitude. I can't see the logic in punishing both equally either.

Your ideas about short but driveable par 4's with lots of treachery looming around the greens is also something I strongly agree with - but now we're starting to get more into course design philosophy than rules about club limits. I think we may need a separate thread for that (hmmmm... ;)). You're spot on about the excitement and drama which a few driveable par 4's down the final stretch of closing holes in a tournament provides. Edge of your seat, hold-in-your-piss kind of stuff. Risk and drama tend to make good bedfellows.






FON

[Kiwi Player]

Less clubs doesn't necessarily guarantee to disadvantage the long hitter - that's not really the point (the point is to better reward the best ball strikers and shotmakers), but the choice of clubs they decide to bag for any specific round will have to be thought out much more carefully - such as your example. No even numbered irons - that will create larger gaps that require more finesse to get approach shots close enough to the hole to score, which I believe would lessen the scoring gap between shorter hitting finesse players and the pure "bomb & gouge" type players. If you look at the shorter hitters in the pro game, this is where you find a LOT of the true finesse players. They wouldn't still be able to top ten on a regular basis on long courses if they couldn't hit greens with long irons. Having larger gaps between their clubs would most likely work more in their favor than in favor of the long hitter, thus somewhat neutralizing the scoring advantage which length currently provides. I think it would place the premium back on accuracy, especially on approach shots.

It doesn't matter if you're a long hitter or a short hitter - the cream will rise to the top based on creativity and the ability to improvise approach shots with clubs that will likely more often than not be less than *perfectly* suited to the task. You also have to consider the common misconception that long hitters spray the ball everywhere, just by the virtue that they are long. There are a lot of long hitters that can pick a stripe and land on it - but look at the choices they would have to make once they get in the fairway at a yardage that would be perfect for a 6 iron. Long hitters inherently already have large gaps between clubs (ask me how I know this ), and reducing the number of clubs would widen many of those gaps even more. Just to use myself as an example - I hit a 5 iron about 215, and hit a 7 iron about 185. My 6 iron is my 200 club. Without the 6 iron, I have a 30 yard gap. A shorter hitter who hits a 5 iron 180, probably hits a 7 iron about 165. That's only a 15 yard gap - and I think we would all agree that it takes more finesse to cover a 30 yard gap than a 15 yard gap. Personally, if I were limited to 10 clubs, I leave the 3,4, and 6 irons out of the bag and keep the rest of what I already have with no changes. I prefer a more "graduated" order to my gaps anyway, with shorter gaps for shorter shots, and larger gaps in the long game.

So in summary, I feel that removing a few clubs would probably disadvantage the long hitters who simply aren't as skilled at hitting finesse shots, effectively thinning out the top of the field and allowing the shorter hitters to maintain a greater competitive advantage than they have currently. Tiger would likely benefit the most from this however, as he is already long, and most certainly the best finesse player on tour. That gap would get a bit wider - and I see nothing wrong with that. If the purpose of competition is to determine who the best player is on any given day, why would we want to make it harder for the best player to win? It should be harder for floggers to fluke their way to victory than it is now. The reality is that the playing field isn't NEARLY as level as the current state of the game makes it appear.

That's my explanation.




FON

FON that's a very good explanation. As someone mentioned in an earlier post manufacturers would never allow the number of clubs to be reduced and I'm sure many amatuers would protest loudly but it would be great to see your theory put to the test on the tour in special 10 club only tournaments.

[FreakOfNature]

FON that's a very good explanation. As someone mentioned in an earlier post manufacturers would never allow the number of clubs to be reduced and I'm sure many amatuers would protest loudly but it would be great to see your theory put to the test on the tour in special 10 club only tournaments.

I'd fully expect club manufacturers to protest this like I was trying to steal their children. They'd get little more than a waving middle finger aimed squarely in their face from me. I harbor no sympathy towards the manufacturers who have already done enough harm to this game IMO. They would destroy the entire sport if left to their own devices - the proof of this are the now necessary rules we have in place to keep them from going too far. They've done the damage themselves, and have no right to b!tch about whatever sort of "damage control" measures we have to now take to restore the challenge and integrity of competition in golf as we know it today. Up theirs.

I think the best way to test out the 10 club idea would be a silly-season event, maybe the "Wendy's 3-Tour Challenge" could become the "Wendy's 3 Tour 10 Club Challenge", just for sh!ts and giggles. That way we get to see firsthand what the difference means to PGA, LPGA, and Senior PGA players, all at the same time. Since all the money goes to charity, it's not like the players are gonna starve if it doesn't take well. I have a feeling that any casual viewers tuning in to watch would not even notice that the pros were only bagging 10 clubs. Only one way to find out...





FON

[Kiwi Player]

I have a feeling that any casual viewers tuning in to watch would not even notice that the pros were only bagging 10 clubs. Only one way to find out...

FON

Agree with this statement 100%. Apart from the fact that some commentators would be likely to blab on endlessly about it. "Well it looks like a regulation 6 iron to me but since he's only carrying 10 clubs ... blah blah blah "

[bladeduffer]

>>> i can hit the driver off the deck.... thanks again 2i. <<<

So can I but, and maybe it's a mental thing, I just don't if the 3w is sitting in my bag. One of these days, after a couple of triple rum and cokes, I'll yank it from the bag and see what happens.


bd

[pingman360]

Yeah, it's fun as hell. We do 2 clubs + putter. That REALLY separates the playas from the pretenders. Technical guys struggle and feel players dominate.

yea it gets really tough for me when we do things like this with my school team... i am to much of a technical play i really dont know the meaning of feel when it comes to golf... normally im ranked #1 in score (and seat) but when it comes to this i rank about #4 of 8 in score... im trying to get away from being soo technical but its hard for me... i dont think ever really will either... but look at players like Adam Scott he is a super ball-striker but you can just tell his feel is off on the greens...

[pingman360]

i can hit the driver off the deck....
Omen

yeah but how accurate???

[Omen2]

yeah but how accurate???

slight fade.. can turn it over but usually dont fight it.

[Not a hacker]

but look at players like Adam Scott he is a super ball-striker but you can just tell his feel is off on the greens...

Agree totally with this. Most pros could wear gardening gloves and have more feel than Scott on the greens. I think it may have something to do with Butch. He's spent so much time turning Scott into one of the best swingers on tour, but as yet hasn't really resolved his short game deficiencies. Maybe it's just a case of Scott just lacking the natural talent for the short game, I don't know.

[Monchief]

To be honest, even 14 clubs is too many in my book. It takes the finesse and creativity out of the game and makes it more difficult to separate the "players" from the "posers". A true "player" can hit shots that aren't stock, whereas a "poser" has a club that hits that shot for them, without adjustment

Why make golf harder than it already is? the last thing the sport needs is more people leaving it, over one million people quit per year, so why push more amateurs away? I dont mind it a pro level charity or proam but for everyone? seems like a bad idea

[rooboy]

Interesting points raised here - Played nine holes last night - after a 2 par fives, 5 par fours and 2 par 3's i had used seven clubs(including putter). This was before i had read this thread!

[Strick]

Amendment 15 FAILED! Amendment 10 Ready for a vote?

[bladeduffer]

>>> Why make golf harder than it already is? the last thing the sport needs is more people leaving it, over one million people quit per year, so why push more amateurs away? <<<

First of all, I don't think I've ever come across anyone who's quit golf for good. They may hibernate, let the clubs they haven't managed to throw into the drink collect dust, but one way or another they return. Judging from the packed driving ranges and how generally difficult it is to get decent tee times when the weather is good, I'm quite positive that golf's surging popularity wouldn't be effected in the slightest by this. Secondly, I think the only people that would have issues with a max clubs rule change are exactly those posers FON is talking about: People that have no clue on how to "work" a club, know little to nothing about course management.

bd

[The Purist]

Why make golf harder than it already is? the last thing the sport needs is more people leaving it, over one million people quit per year, so why push more amateurs away? I dont mind it a pro level charity or proam but for everyone? seems like a bad idea

Actually, its more like 3 million that leave the game every year. I bet most of them leave because golf takes too F***in long. Five hour rounds are just too long for most people. I actually like playing in crappy conditions because I know there will be less people on the course, and less people equals a faster round. The wind was blowing 20+mph on Saturday, and we were able to walk the course in just over 3 hours.

[Kiwi Player]

>>> Why make golf harder than it already is? the last thing the sport needs is more people leaving it, over one million people quit per year, so why push more amateurs away? <<<

First of all, I don't think I've ever come across anyone who's quit golf for good. They may hibernate, let the clubs they haven't managed to throw into the drink collect dust, but one way or another they return. Judging from the packed driving ranges and how generally difficult it is to get decent tee times when the weather is good, I'm quite positive that golf's surging popularity wouldn't be effected in the slightest by this. Secondly, I think the only people that would have issues with a max clubs rule change are exactly those posers FON is talking about: People that have no clue on how to "work" a club, know little to nothing about course management.

bd

Not all poor golfers who can't work the ball are 'posers'. I see many older golfers who have taken the game up late in life who will never be better than say 20 but they still derive a lot of enjoyment from playing golf. These people often have relatively cheap equipment, not the latest big brand names like TM, Callaway or Ping. For them course management is just being able to knock the ball up the fairway until they can reach the green.
They may not be single digit golfers but they enjoy the exercise, fresh air and friendly competition that golf offers.

I agree with Monchief. Why make the game harder than it is for these players?

[bladeduffer]

>>> Not all poor golfers who can't work the ball are 'posers'. I see many older golfers who have taken the game up late in life who will never be better than say 20 but they still derive a lot of enjoyment from playing golf. These people often have relatively cheap equipment, not the latest big brand names like TM, Callaway or Ping. For them course management is just being able to knock the ball up the fairway until they can reach the green. <<<

Yeah, dude. I know that. Come on, you should know by now that no one on these boards would call people like this posers.


bd

[Kiwi Player]

>>> Not all poor golfers who can't work the ball are 'posers'. I see many older golfers who have taken the game up late in life who will never be better than say 20 but they still derive a lot of enjoyment from playing golf. These people often have relatively cheap equipment, not the latest big brand names like TM, Callaway or Ping. For them course management is just being able to knock the ball up the fairway until they can reach the green. <<<

Yeah, dude. I know that. Come on, you should know by now that no one on these boards would call people like this posers.


bd

"Secondly, I think the only people that would have issues with a max clubs rule change are exactly those posers FON is talking about: People that have no clue on how to "work" a club, know little to nothing about course management."

Ok well fair enough, just that your earlier post seemed to put across the idea that only posers would have an issue with the maximum club rule.

But thinking about it maybe you're right. The people I'm describing probably only use about 6 clubs. Driver, 7 wood or hybrid, 7 iron, pitching wedge, sand wedge, putter.

[bladeduffer]

>>> Ok well fair enough, just that your earlier post seemed to put across the idea that only posers would have an issue with the maximum club rule. <<<

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough but then again I am American which makes English my second language.


bd

[FreakOfNature]

"Secondly, I think the only people that would have issues with a max clubs rule change are exactly those posers FON is talking about: People that have no clue on how to "work" a club, know little to nothing about course management."

Ok well fair enough, just that your earlier post seemed to put across the idea that only posers would have an issue with the maximum club rule.

But thinking about it maybe you're right. The people I'm describing probably only use about 6 clubs. Driver, 7 wood or hybrid, 7 iron, pitching wedge, sand wedge, putter.

So many arguments against my POV that just support it further. I hardly know where to start but thanks to all for helping make my point for me.

Beginners are not going to find the game any more difficult if they only have 10 clubs. Last I checked they still make 7 club beginner sets which are low-cost, and low risk if a beginner wishes to try their hand at our craft without investing too much financially. It actually makes more sense for a beginner to have less clubs in the first place - when was the last time you saw a beginner whose distance control with any club in the bag was consistently within even 20 yards of a specific number? Kinda hard to do when you're hitting the ball all over the clubface, right? I bet carrying more clubs would help with that... Tell me again how having 10 yard gaps makes the game easier for them.

I bet even single digit handicaps won't find the game all that much different. Others have pointed out that we rarely get to play all 14 clubs in a round anyways, but if someone here can give me one good reason to carry redundant weight, I'm all eyes and ears. If you need a certain club in the bag which you only hit once every 5 rounds - save your money and learn how to IMPROVISE on that one shot every 5 rounds. your score will not suffer.

The "posers" which I was referring to do not play in your local member/guest. They will not be playing in your club championship, or any of your local amateur tournaments. The "posers" are the top level pros - generally they are LONG hitters, with short games that are good enough that accuracy and finesse from the teebox and fairway become foreign concepts to these players. I've gone over this quite thoroughly in previous posts in this thread, so no need to repeat myself here. Accuracy and finesse are not rewarded fairly at the highest level of golf, plain and simple. That bias needs to be eliminated, so the BEST GOLFER gets the trophy, not the unskilled brute. Some courses favor the finesse player already, such as the OLD Augusta National - but since the club made changes to lengthen the course the truth is that most winners there from this day forward will be long hitters with great short games. Hitting greens in regulation is a thankless talent in tournaments like The Masters. Bobby Jones must be rolling in his grave.




FON