AI - Caddie and the rules?

[North Butte]

It’s always been this way in this Rules forum. Every jot and tittle of the Rules is perfect, to be accepted and memorized without question and absolutely necessary for the good at the game.  
 

Of course, every so often they change the rules, in which case every single NEW detail becomes absolutely perfect and critical to the good of the game!🤔

 

In reality, it’s all just made up by people who like making up rules. And it works out fine. The fact it works well does not change the fact that it’s all just made up. The game would survive just fine if the cup were a quarter-inch smaller or we could all carry just 13 clubs.

[ChipStrokes]

Just now, North Butte said:

It’s always been this way in this Rules forum. Every jot and tittle of the Rules is perfect, to be accepted and memorized without question and absolutely necessary for the good at the game.  
 

Of course, every so often they change the rules, in which case every single NEW detail becomes absolutely perfect and critical to the good of the game!🤔

 

In reality, it’s all just made up by people who like making up rules. And it works out fine. The fact it works well does not change the fact that it’s all just made up. The game would survive just fine if the cup were a quarter-inch smaller or we could all carry just 13 clubs.

i've been meaning to post this exact thing for a long time now.  but whenever i start writing it, i end up just not caring enough to get into it.

 

thanks for putting it into words.

[Mr. Bean]

11 minutes ago, North Butte said:

It’s always been this way in this Rules forum. Every jot and tittle of the Rules is perfect, to be accepted and memorized without question and absolutely necessary for the good at the game.  
 

Of course, every so often they change the rules, in which case every single NEW detail becomes absolutely perfect and critical to the good of the game!🤔

 

In reality, it’s all just made up by people who like making up rules. And it works out fine. The fact it works well does not change the fact that it’s all just made up. The game would survive just fine if the cup were a quarter-inch smaller or we could all carry just 13 clubs.

 

It seems to me that you are filtering all the stuff away that does not fit to your conception of this forum. That is not unusual, we all do the same in many occasions.

 

FYI, us who study the Rules very carefully and put them into practice on the courses in competitions also criticize many Rules now, before and in the future. Also we have given our individual opinions over the changes every time they have been made. But apart from criticizing we also absorb the changes and link them to the Rules as a whole.

 

Rules of Golf are certainly not perfect but nothing in this world is.

[betarhoalphadelta]

22 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

 

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. 

 

I'm not saying ALL rules are arbitrary, BTW. For example, if someone asks "why is OB a S&D penalty (or 2 strokes w/ MLR E-5) whereas a lateral hazard is one stroke and drop at the crossing point?" There's a simple answer--and that is to make OB even more penal than a lateral hazard because it might be off the physical property owned by the course, may cause people to make risk/reward decisions that otherwise bring those areas (perhaps including property damage) into play, etc. You're deliberately TRYING to make people avoid OB in a way that is unnecessary for a lateral hazard. You could ask "well why not a two stroke and distance or three-stroke MLR penalty", of course, and the answer would be that the ruling bodies believe that the OB rules are a sufficient deterrent as they are and it's not necessary to be even more penal, lest it upset the balance of the game as a whole. 

 

I think the rationale for the equipment rules, as @rogolf said, is that in the spirit of the game they don't want it to be overtaken by technology. It's a human game limited by human senses. The idea is that you and your caddie can use any information you can effectively gain with your natural senses and faculties while on the course, but technical aids that go beyond that is not in the spirit of the game. That was good enough 400 years ago, and although technology has advanced tremendously, it's not necessary for the health and spirit of the game to make a change allowing it now. 

 

However if you ask "why is the hole 4.25", and not 4" or 4.5"?" The answer is, as you point out, hole size within a certain range will balance out difficulty and scoring. A hole that's only 2" would be extraordinarily hard, whereas a hole that is 12" would very much change much of the calculus between putting and long game. But the fact that it is *exactly* 4.25" is by chance because that was a matter of convenience. I'd argue if it had been a 5" pipe (and thus ~5.25" OD) we'd all be putting on holes that were 5.25" in size today, course designers would factor that into green design difficulty, and we'd all think it was the "right" size. At this point the key is that we all have a standardized hole size, not necessarily what that exact size is [within reason]. 

[2bGood]

3 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

 

However if you ask "why is the hole 4.25", and not 4" or 4.5"?" The answer is, as you point out, hole size within a certain range will balance out difficulty and scoring. A hole that's only 2" would be extraordinarily hard, whereas a hole that is 12" would very much change much of the calculus between putting and long game. But the fact that it is *exactly* 4.25" is by chance because that was a matter of convenience. I'd argue if it had been a 5" pipe (and thus ~5.25" OD) we'd all be putting on holes that were 5.25" in size today, course designers would factor that into green design difficulty, and we'd all think it was the "right" size. At this point the key is that we all have a standardized hole size, not necessarily what that exact size is [within reason]. 

 

I think you are simplifying things a fair bit. There was 60 years gap between the 4.25" hole cutter being used at Musselburgh links and the R & A adopting this as the size of holes in the rules they published. Sure the guys that made that hole cutter might had some 4" pipe handy, but the fact it won out over other hole sizes during his lifetime tells us more about the Hoel size being preferred than the pipe he had laying around. Given 5" and 6" Hole cutters (and others) around during that 60 years too, I still think the rough hole selected was intentional. 

 

And yes there was 5" pipe during the 1800's and even cutters made from it but they were not chosen by the R&A. 

 

Edited May 2, 2023 by 2bGood

[betarhoalphadelta]

1 hour ago, 2bGood said:

 

I think you are simplifying things a fair bit. There was 60 years gap between the 4.25" hole cutter being used at Musselburgh links and the R & A adopting this as the size of holes in the rules they published. Given 5" and 6" Hole cutters (and others) around during that 60 years, I still think the rough hole selected was intentional. 

 

And yes there was 5" pipe during the 1800's and even cutters made from it...

 

 

Thanks. That's good info. I hadn't known that there were competing hole sizes in use for a while. It still means that to an extent they were limited by the common materials available at the time (which is why it's not 4" or 4.6", but it's good to know that there was intention in that this was the size that won competitively based on the ruling body's discretion. 

[Double Mocha Man]

1 hour ago, 2bGood said:

And yes there was 5" pipe during the 1800's and even cutters made from it but they were not chosen by the R&A. 

 

If Jack Nicklaus can suggest a ball that doesn't go as far I can suggest a 5" hole.  What's that phone number again for the USGA?

[North Butte]

9 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

 

If Jack Nicklaus can suggest a ball that doesn't go as far I can suggest a 5" hole.  What's that phone number again for the USGA?

To paraphrase an old saying...

 

Suggest in one hand, spit in the other. See which one fills up faster.

[Mr. Bean]

2 hours ago, 2bGood said:

 

I think you are simplifying things a fair bit. There was 60 years gap between the 4.25" hole cutter being used at Musselburgh links and the R & A adopting this as the size of holes in the rules they published. Sure the guys that made that hole cutter might had some 4" pipe handy, but the fact it won out over other hole sizes during his lifetime tells us more about the Hoel size being preferred than the pipe he had laying around. Given 5" and 6" Hole cutters (and others) around during that 60 years too, I still think the rough hole selected was intentional. 

 

And yes there was 5" pipe during the 1800's and even cutters made from it but they were not chosen by the R&A. 

 

 

Interesting. What is the source of this information?

[2bGood]

1 hour ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Thanks. That's good info. I hadn't known that there were competing hole sizes in use for a while. It still means that to an extent they were limited by the common materials available at the time (which is why it's not 4" or 4.6", but it's good to know that there was intention in that this was the size that won competitively based on the ruling body's discretion. 

Agreed. 

 

As humans we actually do a good job of adapting things until they 'work'. I am sure they at the time there was many a debate after drinks on wether the hole should be bigger or smaller etc. 

[2bGood]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Interesting. What is the source of this information?

I have read it about it in a few places (I love golf history books) and have visited Musselburgh several times as I lived in the area and they have the original hole cutter on display with the history documents.

 

I just googled it and it turns out there is a fascinating article on the topic - https://www.sbwga.com/uploads/1/2/0/6/12060871/why_is_the_golf_hole_size_4.pdf

 

It actually does not back up everything I said, but it is interesting in it's own right. 

[IndyArcher]

4 hours ago, 2bGood said:

I have read it about it in a few places (I love golf history books) and have visited Musselburgh several times as I lived in the area and they have the original hole cutter on display with the history documents.

 

I just googled it and it turns out there is a fascinating article on the topic - https://www.sbwga.com/uploads/1/2/0/6/12060871/why_is_the_golf_hole_size_4.pdf

 

It actually does not back up everything I said, but it is interesting in it's own right. 

 

What intrigues me about the article and the choice in hole size (which is fascinating, so thank you for finding and posting it!)—especially in light of the recent conversations here is this statement:

 

”But it was almost certainly a completely arbitrary thing…”

[2bGood]

3 hours ago, IndyArcher said:

 

What intrigues me about the article and the choice in hole size (which is fascinating, so thank you for finding and posting it!)—especially in light of the recent conversations here is this statement:

 

”But it was almost certainly a completely arbitrary thing…”

Yes I caught that.🤷‍♂️ Like I said, I did not post it to back my own arguments, but rather as it was an interesting write up on the topic.

[Colin L]

On 5/2/2023 at 4:32 PM, North Butte said:

It’s always been this way in this Rules forum. Every jot and tittle of the Rules is perfect, to be accepted and memorized without question and absolutely necessary for the good at the game.  
 

Of course, every so often they change the rules, in which case every single NEW detail becomes absolutely perfect and critical to the good of the game!🤔

 

In reality, it’s all just made up by people who like making up rules. And it works out fine. The fact it works well does not change the fact that it’s all just made up. The game would survive just fine if the cup were a quarter-inch smaller or we could all carry just 13 clubs.

That’s a pretty wild mischaracterising of folk who tell you how it is, usually without comment on whether the rule is a good one, well or badly written. Sure, when a rule changes we adapt and tell you how it now is on a that was then, this is now basis. Believe me there is plenty of constructive criticism at every level and believe me too, the ruling bodies listen. 

 

[antip]

9 hours ago, Colin L said:

That’s a pretty wild mischaracterising of folk who tell you how it is, usually without comment on whether the rule is a good one, well or badly written. Sure, when a rule changes we adapt and tell you how it now is on a that was then, this is now basis. Believe me there is plenty of constructive criticism at every level and believe me too, the ruling bodies listen. 

 

You've been mulling this for a while Colin 🙂. Agree entirely!

[Colin L]

4 hours ago, antip said:

You've been mulling this for a while Colin 🙂. Agree entirely!

It's certainly a while since I was last caught out by an old posting.  I even manage to overlook the "2 years later...."  clue. 🙄