AI - Caddie and the rules?

[2bGood]

For fun I asked an AI program to weigh in on this issue (everything not bolded is from AI):

 

There are arguments both for and against using an AI caddy in the sport of golf. Here are some points to consider:

Reasons for using an AI caddy:

1. Data analysis: AI caddies could analyze data from a player's past games, weather forecasts, course conditions, and other relevant factors to make more informed recommendations.

2. Objectivity: AI caddies would be objective and free from biases, which could help players make better decisions.

3. Time-saving: AI caddies could help speed up the game by quickly providing advice and reducing the time spent on decision-making.

4. Accessibility: An AI caddy could provide assistance to players who may not have the resources to hire a human caddy.

Reasons against using an AI caddy:

1. Loss of human touch: Golf is a sport that often relies on human interaction and communication between player and caddy. The use of an AI caddy could detract from the human element of the game.

2. Potential for errors: While AI caddies could analyze data and provide recommendations, there is always a risk of error in the technology or in the data used to make recommendations.

3. Cost: Developing and implementing AI caddy technology would likely require significant investment, which may not be feasible for all golf courses or players.

4. Ethics: There may be concerns about the ethics of using AI technology in sports, particularly if it provides players with an unfair advantage.

Overall, the decision to use an AI caddy in golf would depend on the specific context and individual preferences. Some players may value the objectivity and data-driven recommendations of an AI caddy, while others may prefer the human touch and communication of a human caddy. It is important to consider the potential benefits and drawbacks of AI caddies before deciding whether or not to use them in the sport of golf.

 

Then I asked if the rules were fair that did not allow AI

 

The USGA rules of golf currently do not allow for the use of AI technology during competition rounds. This rule is in place to ensure fairness and maintain the integrity of the game.

The use of AI technology in golf could potentially provide players with an unfair advantage over their competitors. For example, an AI caddy could analyze a player's swing and provide real-time feedback, which could improve their performance on the course. This could give players who have access to this technology an edge over those who do not.

Additionally, the USGA rules of golf are designed to ensure that all players are subject to the same set of rules and equipment standards. If the rules were changed to allow for the use of AI technology, it could create a divide between players who have access to this technology and those who do not. This could lead to an unfair playing field and potentially harm the competitive balance of the sport.

However, it is important to note that the use of AI technology in golf is not inherently unfair. The technology could potentially provide benefits to all players, not just those with access to high-end equipment. For example, AI technology could be used to develop more accurate course maps or provide better weather forecasts, which could benefit all players.

Ultimately, the decision to allow the use of AI technology in golf competitions would need to be carefully considered and weighed against the potential benefits and drawbacks. At present, the USGA rules of golf do not allow for the use of AI technology, and it is up to the governing bodies of the sport to determine if and when such a change should be made.

Edited May 1, 2023 by 2bGood

[2bGood]

2 hours ago, Naptime said:

Personally I would prefer that caddies just carry gear.  To the extent that they offer guidance to golf tourists in the British Isles etc. they probably lower the scores of the players who don't usually play seaside links on unfamiliar courses.  Curious why pros in the Masters wanted their own caddies.  Share th wealth with their usual looper?  More attuned to the golfer's psyche?  Probably not more familiarity with greens and yardages than ANGC loopers.  While traditional in some circles, it does seem to be a crutch.  

I think you grossly underestimate the role many caddies play with pro's. Admittedly some more than others.

[sui generis]

17 minutes ago, North Butte said:

See, that's the point.

 

The "point" is that in the Rules folder when anyone of us jumps up on our soapbox, we should be careful to stick to the facts.

[ChipStrokes]

47 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Thank you for your feedback, Indy. However...

 

I doubt my post to Chris was difficult to "listen to" as it was as plain as I can write or even say. He asks and asks and asks but always refuses to accept the answer.

 

There is only so much a person, even a teacher as I am, can take.

no, indy pretty much nailed it. 

 

but if you truly believe that you’ve answered my questions, then there’s no reason to go further 

 

you win! congrats!

[North Butte]

11 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

The "point" is that in the Rules folder when anyone of us jumps up on our soapbox, we should be careful to stick to the facts.

My "point" is that no golfer needs to know the exact dimensions of the hole. It's already been taken care of. The fact that I was carrying around "4-1/2 inches" in my head all these years demonstrates that "point" conclusively. 

 

[ThinkingPlus]

19 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

I think you grossly underestimate the role many caddies play with pro's. Admittedly some more than others.

I think that is much more because of the fragility of the pros rather than the utility of the caddies.

[sui generis]

19 minutes ago, North Butte said:

My "point" is that no golfer needs to know the exact dimensions of the hole. It's already been taken care of. The fact that I was carrying around "4-1/2 inches" in my head all these years demonstrates that "point" conclusively. 

 

 

One's ignorance of the Rules does not demonstrate that they are arbitrary.

[North Butte]

5 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

One's ignorance of the Rules does not demonstrate that they are arbitrary.

They are arbitrary, no other way to describe it. 

 

The fact that one doesn't need to know details like the hole measurement demonstrates that the details don't matter. All that matters is for a few million people to agree to some set of arbitrary rules, then stick to them. Golf would be no more or less popular and enjoyable a game if that arbitrary number were 4-1/2" or 3-7/8" instead of 4-1/4" or whatever the heck you said it actually is.

[davep043]

1 hour ago, sui generis said:

 

One's ignorance of the Rules does not demonstrate that they are arbitrary.

I think I know the Rules reasonably well, and I recognize that in many cases they ARE arbitrary.  Not that there aren't underlying principles, but when the Rules need to draw a hard dividing line in a continuum of behaviours, the exact location of that line has to be somewhat arbitrary.  

Edited May 1, 2023 by davep043

[betarhoalphadelta]

4 hours ago, North Butte said:

Every single Rule of Golf is completely arbitrary. Unless you want to just have no rules at all (or let each golfer make up their own set) it has to be that way. Why is the hole 4-1/2" intead of 4-1/4" or 5-3/4" or whatever?  

 

2 hours ago, sui generis said:

 

Hole

The finishing point on the putting green for the hole being played: The hole must be 4 ¼ inches (108 mm) in diameter and . . . .

 

https://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-clarifications/rules-and-clarifications.html#!ruletype=fr&section=definitions&subrulenum=24

 

2 hours ago, North Butte said:

See, that's the point. I've played thousands of rounds of golf over three decades and never even knew the exact number. Just goes to show the (arbitrary) number doesn't matter. All a golfer needs to know is it's standardized and will be the same where ever he goes. 

 

Or who knows, maybe I'd have made more putts over the years if I realized I had 1/4" less to work with than I thought I did 😬

 

2 hours ago, sui generis said:

 

One's ignorance of the Rules does not demonstrate that they are arbitrary.

 

Quoting the rule also does not demonstrate that they are NOT arbitrary. 

 

Having a rule for standardized hole size is IMHO necessary for the sport. Codifying that in a rule also makes tremendous sense. However, Butte asked "why" that number is used, rather than something larger or smaller. And what you quoted was the rule saying it's 4.25". There was no attempt to answer "why" it is that number rather than some other. 

 

And the reason is that we don't know exactly why. The first hole-cutter was invented in 1829 in Scotland, and it just so happened to be 4.25" in diameter. And we've simply stuck with that ever since. https://golftoday.co.uk/what-size-is-the-golf-hole-and-why/

 

It's postulated that this size happened because it may have been the size of an available drainage pipe which became the hole cutter. And *IF* this is true, assuming that the drainage pipe wasn't chosen SPECIFICALLY because it was 4.25", but merely because it was available and "about right", I'd say that the hole size we all have standardized upon today is completely arbitrary. 

[ChipStrokes]

14 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

However, Butte asked "why" that number is used, rather than something larger or smaller. And what you quoted was the rule saying it's 4.25". There was no attempt to answer "why" it is that number rather than some other. 

standard operating procedure in the rules forum

 

this is what mister beans was failing to understand when i told him he didn’t answer my questions. 

Edited May 1, 2023 by ChipStrokes

[sui generis]

23 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

 

 

 

Quoting the rule also does not demonstrate that they are NOT arbitrary. 

 

Having a rule for standardized hole size is IMHO necessary for the sport. Codifying that in a rule also makes tremendous sense. However, Butte asked "why" that number is used, rather than something larger or smaller. And what you quoted was the rule saying it's 4.25". There was no attempt to answer "why" it is that number rather than some other. 

 

And the reason is that we don't know exactly why. The first hole-cutter was invented in 1829 in Scotland, and it just so happened to be 4.25" in diameter. And we've simply stuck with that ever since. https://golftoday.co.uk/what-size-is-the-golf-hole-and-why/

 

It's postulated that this size happened because it may have been the size of an available drainage pipe which became the hole cutter. And *IF* this is true, assuming that the drainage pipe wasn't chosen SPECIFICALLY because it was 4.25", but merely because it was available and "about right", I'd say that the hole size we all have standardized upon today is completely arbitrary. 

 

All right, you win, the Rules are stupid.

 

You, too, North Butte, yes, the Rules are stupid.

[Socrates]

3 hours ago, 2bGood said:

For fun I asked an AI program to weigh in on this issue (everything not bolded is from AI):

 

There are arguments both for and against using an AI caddy in the sport of golf. Here are some points to consider:

Reasons for using an AI caddy:

1. Data analysis: AI caddies could analyze data from a player's past games, weather forecasts, course conditions, and other relevant factors to make more informed recommendations.

2. Objectivity: AI caddies would be objective and free from biases, which could help players make better decisions.

3. Time-saving: AI caddies could help speed up the game by quickly providing advice and reducing the time spent on decision-making.

4. Accessibility: An AI caddy could provide assistance to players who may not have the resources to hire a human caddy.

Reasons against using an AI caddy:

1. Loss of human touch: Golf is a sport that often relies on human interaction and communication between player and caddy. The use of an AI caddy could detract from the human element of the game.

2. Potential for errors: While AI caddies could analyze data and provide recommendations, there is always a risk of error in the technology or in the data used to make recommendations.

3. Cost: Developing and implementing AI caddy technology would likely require significant investment, which may not be feasible for all golf courses or players.

4. Ethics: There may be concerns about the ethics of using AI technology in sports, particularly if it provides players with an unfair advantage.

Overall, the decision to use an AI caddy in golf would depend on the specific context and individual preferences. Some players may value the objectivity and data-driven recommendations of an AI caddy, while others may prefer the human touch and communication of a human caddy. It is important to consider the potential benefits and drawbacks of AI caddies before deciding whether or not to use them in the sport of golf.

 

Then I asked if the rules were fair that did not allow AI

 

The USGA rules of golf currently do not allow for the use of AI technology during competition rounds. This rule is in place to ensure fairness and maintain the integrity of the game.

The use of AI technology in golf could potentially provide players with an unfair advantage over their competitors. For example, an AI caddy could analyze a player's swing and provide real-time feedback, which could improve their performance on the course. This could give players who have access to this technology an edge over those who do not.

Additionally, the USGA rules of golf are designed to ensure that all players are subject to the same set of rules and equipment standards. If the rules were changed to allow for the use of AI technology, it could create a divide between players who have access to this technology and those who do not. This could lead to an unfair playing field and potentially harm the competitive balance of the sport.

However, it is important to note that the use of AI technology in golf is not inherently unfair. The technology could potentially provide benefits to all players, not just those with access to high-end equipment. For example, AI technology could be used to develop more accurate course maps or provide better weather forecasts, which could benefit all players.

Ultimately, the decision to allow the use of AI technology in golf competitions would need to be carefully considered and weighed against the potential benefits and drawbacks. At present, the USGA rules of golf do not allow for the use of AI technology, and it is up to the governing bodies of the sport to determine if and when such a change should be made.

Kinda scary to get such good argument from AI that isn't really in it's favor.

[ThinkingPlus]

21 minutes ago, Socrates said:

Kinda scary to get such good argument from AI that isn't really in it's favor.

You are anthropomorphizing. It isn't an it.

[Socrates]

I wonder if an AI device would tell you in the middle of a round, that they've had enough of your crap and they're outta here?  Or vice versa.

[Double Mocha Man]

5 minutes ago, Socrates said:

I wonder if an AI device would tell you in the middle of a round, that they've had enough of your crap and they're outta here?  Or vice versa.

 

You would need to put the setting on the AI device to S.O.B.

[betarhoalphadelta]

1 hour ago, sui generis said:

 

All right, you win, the Rules are stupid.

 

You, too, North Butte, yes, the Rules are stupid.

 

Arbitrary != stupid, and nobody claimed that. 

[Double Mocha Man]

6 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

You would need to put the setting on the AI device to S.O.B.

 

There are 4 settings on the AI caddie:

1.  Devastatingly honest

2. Suck up

3. Indifferent

4  S.O.B.

[sui generis]

38 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Arbitrary != stupid, and nobody claimed that. 

 

Join the crowd. Yes, to you also, the Rules are stupid.

[2bGood]

2 hours ago, Socrates said:

I wonder if an AI device would tell you in the middle of a round, that they've had enough of your crap and they're outta here?  Or vice versa.

I asked AI this question here - is the answer....

 

As a caddy, my primary goal would be to help my golfer maintain focus and composure throughout their round. If my golfer were to let their emotions get out of control, I would try to help them calm down by offering some words of encouragement and perspective.

 

First, I would remind my golfer that golf is a game of highs and lows and that everyone has bad shots or holes. I would encourage them to take a deep breath and let go of the frustration from the previous shot or hole.

Next, I would remind them to stay focused on the present and the shot at hand. I would encourage them to visualize a successful shot and to commit fully to their pre-shot routine.

 

I might also offer some technical advice or strategy to help my golfer get back on track. For example, if they were struggling with their swing, I might suggest a specific adjustment or drill to help them regain their confidence.

 

Overall, my approach would be to stay positive, supportive, and constructive in my feedback, while also helping my golfer stay focused on the present moment and the task at hand.

Edited May 1, 2023 by 2bGood

[nsxguy]

23 hours ago, Schulzmc said:

I understand the rule. I’m trying to understand the rationale.

 

23 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

If that app uses information that has been gathered from previous rounds it would be ok as that is the information caddie uses as well. But what was suggested (afa I understood) was that the AI Caddie would use AI to "learn" during the round and adjust the data accordingly. That is not allowed as per R4.3.

 

23 hours ago, ChipStrokes said:

again, attempting to understand here…

 

your caddy is watching every shot. is he not “learning” during the round? 

 

so what’s the functional difference?

 

23 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I bet no caddie can perform the mathematics required on site.

 

It is all explained in R4.3 and Clarifications. Do study them.

 

4 hours ago, ChipStrokes said:

standard operating procedure in the rules forum

 

this is what mister beans was failing to understand when i told him he didn’t answer my questions. 

 

Wellllll, to be fair(?), you've sure tortured him enough.

 

Seems to me ol' beanie never did actually understand your (&Schmuly's) question in the first place, as Betar did Buttes, AND Betar actually looked up the REASON the hole was 4.25" and gave the ANSWER to Butte's question.

 

Also seems to me ol' chippy coulda RE-STATED the actual question rather than let beanie go on and on and on.

 

Anywho beanie, the "question" is right up top in this post. "I understand the rule. I’m trying to understand the rationale" (behind the Rule (4.3)).

 

Given ol' beanie is a teacher, I'm betting more than once he's ask a student "Do you even understand what I am asking you ?"

 

I hope this helps. And if not, sorry for getting it wrong.

 

I'll show myself out.

 

[ChipStrokes]

12 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

 

 

 

 

Wellllll, to be fair(?), you've sure tortured him enough.

 

Seems to me ol' beanie never did actually understand your (&Schmuly's) question in the first place, as Betar did Buttes, AND Betar actually looked up the REASON the hole was 4.25" and gave the ANSWER to Butte's question.

 

Also seems to me ol' chippy coulda RE-STATED the actual question rather than let beanie go on and on and on.

 

Anywho beanie, the "question" is right up top in this post. "I understand the rule. I’m trying to understand the rationale" (behind the Rule (4.3)).

 

Given ol' beanie is a teacher, I'm betting more than once he's ask a student "Do you even understand what I am asking you ?"

 

I hope this helps. And if not, sorry for getting it wrong.

 

I'll show myself out.

 

he earned it. 

 

i’ve read from the sidelines in enough of these threads to know that bean’s MO is to direct people to the rule he feels addresses their issue and entertain no further discussion about it. 

 

ironically, as it pertains to the thread, he reads more like a machine than a person 😂😂

 

and if he’s truly a teacher, i weep for his students. 

 

i can see it now:

 

”mr bean i have a question about the homework”

 

well did you read the chapter? it addressed all questions. 

 

“i did, as it was part of the homework. it’s actually what i have a couple of questions about”

 

read it again, it’s all in there. 

 

🙄🙄🙄

 

your synopsis pretty much sums it up, though. and it’s FINE if there’s no good answer. in fact, the best answer i got in this thread was from dave and he basically said as much.

 

but still no one has answered my most recent question, which is in rule 4.3 where it states that:

 

Not Allowed:

Processing or interpreting playing information from the round (such as club recommendations based on current round distances)

 

is there a follow up that states “processing” pertains to technology/computers only (as beans alluded to)?  because you, me, bean, and every other person processes and interprets information on every single stroke we make on the course. 

Edited May 2, 2023 by ChipStrokes

[rogolf]

8 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

he earned it. 

 

i’ve read from the sidelines in enough of these threads to know that bean’s MO is to direct people to the rule he feels addresses their issue and entertain no further discussion about it. 

 

ironically, as it pertains to the thread, he reads more like a machine than a person 😂😂

 

and if he’s truly a teacher, i weep for his students. 

 

i can see it now:

 

”mr bean i have a question about the homework”

 

well did you read the chapter? it addressed all questions. 

 

“i did, as it was part of the homework. it’s actually what i have a couple of questions about”

 

read it again, it’s all in there. 

 

🙄🙄🙄

 

your synopsis pretty much sums it up, though. and it’s FINE if there’s no good answer. in fact, the best answer i got in this thread was from dave and he basically said as much.

 

but still no one has answered my most recent question, which is in rule 4.3 where it states that:

 

Not Allowed:

Processing or interpreting playing information from the round (such as club recommendations based on current round distances)

 

is there a follow up that states “processing” pertains to technology/computers only?  because you, me, bean, and every other person processes and interprets information on every single stroke we make on the course. 

Let's be precise.  Rule 4.3 is titled "Use of Equipment".  "Equipment" is a defined term in the Rules, defined, in part, as "Anything used, worn, held or carried by the player or the player's caddie."

Equipment does not include the player, caddie, or any other person.

Further, the purpose of Rule 4 says,

Rule 4 covers the equipment that players may use during a round.  Based on the principle that golf if a challenging game in which success should depend on the player's judgement, skills and abilities, the player:

• must use conforming clubs and balls
• is limited to no more than 14 clubs, and
• is restricted in the use of other equipment that gives artificial help to their play.

Edited May 2, 2023 by rogolf

[ChipStrokes]

Just now, rogolf said:

Let's be precise.  Rule 4.3 is titled "Use of Equipment".  "Equipment" is a defined term in the Rules, defined, in part, as "Anything used, worn, held or carried by the player or the player's caddie."

Equipment does not include the player, caddie, or any other person.

well now that’s an answer. didn’t really seem all that hard. thank you. 

 

so players and caddies can process and interpret whatever they want, they just can’t use a device to aid them in that processing. 

 

appreciate you. 

[rogolf]

7 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

 

 

 

Quoting the rule also does not demonstrate that they are NOT arbitrary. 

 

Having a rule for standardized hole size is IMHO necessary for the sport. Codifying that in a rule also makes tremendous sense. However, Butte asked "why" that number is used, rather than something larger or smaller. And what you quoted was the rule saying it's 4.25". There was no attempt to answer "why" it is that number rather than some other. 

 

And the reason is that we don't know exactly why. The first hole-cutter was invented in 1829 in Scotland, and it just so happened to be 4.25" in diameter. And we've simply stuck with that ever since. https://golftoday.co.uk/what-size-is-the-golf-hole-and-why/

 

It's postulated that this size happened because it may have been the size of an available drainage pipe which became the hole cutter. And *IF* this is true, assuming that the drainage pipe wasn't chosen SPECIFICALLY because it was 4.25", but merely because it was available and "about right", I'd say that the hole size we all have standardized upon today is completely arbitrary. 

Yes, the 4 1/4 inches happened to be the outside diameter of the standard 4 inch pipe of those times.  Prior to that, the holes were just "holes" with no hole liner and were whatever size they were and became through use.  Since the majority of golf was played as match play, one on one (or sides/partners), it didn't matter if hole size was different, even different on each hole - it was the same for everyone in the match.

One can argue that all "rules" are arbitrary - why are bases in baseball 90 ft apart, why is the pitches mound 60 ft from home plate, why is the football field 100 yards long (or 110 yards in another league), why is the basket a specified height from the floor, etc.  It goes on and on.  They are what they are based on the history and traditions of the game being played.  Imo, once they are settled and standardized. for whatever reason, they are no longer "arbitrary".

Example - was this year's change in the size of bases in baseball arbitrary?

And btw, what does it matter?

 

Edited May 2, 2023 by rogolf

[Mr. Bean]

8 hours ago, ChipStrokes said:

so players and caddies can process and interpret whatever they want, they just can’t use a

device to aid them in that processing. 

 

Just as Rule 4.3 says...🥱

[North Butte]

8 hours ago, rogolf said:

 

And btw, what does it matter?

 

The exact details don't matter. The only thing that matters is that everyone playing the game agrees to them. That's been my whole point.

[betarhoalphadelta]

11 hours ago, rogolf said:

Yes, the 4 1/4 inches happened to be the outside diameter of the standard 4 inch pipe of those times.  Prior to that, the holes were just "holes" with no hole liner and were whatever size they were and became through use.  Since the majority of golf was played as match play, one on one (or sides/partners), it didn't matter if hole size was different, even different on each hole - it was the same for everyone in the match.

One can argue that all "rules" are arbitrary - why are bases in baseball 90 ft apart, why is the pitches mound 60 ft from home plate, why is the football field 100 yards long (or 110 yards in another league), why is the basket a specified height from the floor, etc.  It goes on and on.  They are what they are based on the history and traditions of the game being played.  Imo, once they are settled and standardized. for whatever reason, they are no longer "arbitrary".

Example - was this year's change in the size of bases in baseball arbitrary?

And btw, what does it matter?

 

 

You all keep acting like I'm using "arbitrary" as if it's some kind of dirty word. That I'm using "arbitrary" to denigrate the choice of hole size.  

 

I'm not. 

 

 

Quote

 

arbitrary

adjective

US 

/ˈɑr·bɪˌtrer·i/

based on a desire or idea or chance rather than reason

 

 

 

That's my only point. The hole size was likely based on chance--a drainage pipe happened to have a 4.25" outer diameter. Rather than a meticulous derivation of what a "proper" golf hole size would be, coming to a conclusion that it's 4.25", and then searching out an implement that exactly matched that dimension. (Obviously this was done nearly 200 years ago, so it's possible that whoever first did this did make a meticulous derivation of what a proper hole size is. But I'll use Occam's Razor and suggest that it's more likely he just found a pipe, it "looked about right", and so that was chosen.)

 

If the hole size was arrived at because there just happened to be a conveniently-sized drainage pipe that could be fashioned into a cutting tool to make uniform holes, then I would say it is arbitrary. And there's nothing wrong with that. 

[ChipStrokes]

12 hours ago, rogolf said:

Example - was this year's change in the size of bases in baseball arbitrary?

the rule itself wasn’t arbitrary. the bases were changed to increase player safety and, to a lesser degree, bring base stealing back to baseball. 

 

the size, though, was arbitrary. 

 

[2bGood]

1 hour ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

You all keep acting like I'm using "arbitrary" as if it's some kind of dirty word. That I'm using "arbitrary" to denigrate the choice of hole size.  

 

I'm not. 

 

 

 

 

That's my only point. The hole size was likely based on chance--a drainage pipe happened to have a 4.25" outer diameter. Rather than a meticulous derivation of what a "proper" golf hole size would be, coming to a conclusion that it's 4.25", and then searching out an implement that exactly matched that dimension. (Obviously this was done nearly 200 years ago, so it's possible that whoever first did this did make a meticulous derivation of what a proper hole size is. But I'll use Occam's Razor and suggest that it's more likely he just found a pipe, it "looked about right", and so that was chosen.)

 

If the hole size was arrived at because there just happened to be a conveniently-sized drainage pipe that could be fashioned into a cutting tool to make uniform holes, then I would say it is arbitrary. And there's nothing wrong with that. 

 

I don't think this is fully true. The rules of sport tend to develop to make the sport fun and interesting. Moreover, the argument that rules are arbitrary overlooks the fact that many rules are established for practical reasons. For example, the distance between bases in baseball is not arbitrary but is determined by the physical capabilities of the players and the need for a balance between offense and defense. Similarly, the size of the basketball hoop is not arbitrary but is designed to provide a reasonable challenge for players while still allowing for scoring.

 

The golf hole is the same. The size of the hole allows for a reasonable degree of difficulty in scoring, without making it impossible for golfers of varying skill levels to succeed. The fact the hole is around 4.25" was not arbitrary, but by design to create roughly the right balance between challenge and opportunity to score. The precise dimensions then came down to how to practically make a hole roughly the the right size. Given there was at the time pipe of multiple sizes, the only part of this that was dumb luck is the precise size, but not the size in general. 

 

Given the hole is the size it is out of practicality and by design it is anything but arbitrary. 

Edited May 2, 2023 by 2bGood