GIVEAWAY: Vokey SM8 60* Wedge- ENTER HERE.

USGA PR team to Justin Thomas: "We need to talk"

11617181921
22

Comments

  • Ashley SchaefferAshley Schaeffer Members  2801WRX Points: 1,098Posts: 2,801 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #602
    davep043 wrote:
    <br />
    <br />
    ^^^<br />
    Well, fortunately for JT, he didn't have to say that at a press conference because it didn't happen. Saying that publicly would be a lie. This according to him and the USGA.<br />
    <br />
    None of us know the details, the real truth behind the public posturing.<br />
    JT is almost certainly covering his own a** to an extent. He chose NOT to communicate at times, saying he's too busy to do it during a 3-week long stretch when he was playing tournaments. He doesn't say it that way, of course, that would make him look bad. And really, he couldn't carve out an hour or two on Monday or Tuesday, if it was that important to him? Notice he didn't say "The USGA didn't answer my calls," so he apparently didn't try. That's based on what HE said, or didn't say, and he certainly would have used that in his self-defense if it had been true.<br />
    Again, I don't know the truth, neither do you.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    Yep, so we just have to go off of what JT and the USGA both agree upon: that JT didn't cancel meetings nor avoid communication, despite the USGA initially stating that he did.
    Posted:
    8.5* TS3 - Evenflow White T-1100
    15* M2 2017
    18* M2 2017
    4-PW Mizuno JPX850F
    SM7 50*, 54*, 60*
    SC Newport Two
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • b.heltsb.helts Members  3246WRX Points: 745Posts: 3,246 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #603
    <br />
    JT May also realize what a lesson in futility it likely would have been to take one of those calls. It wouldn’t have accomplished anything for him, so why dive in deeper? The USGA is likely going to say they had a “very productive conversation “ with JT. Really, why bother? Nothing. Is getting solved. <br />
    <br />
    Just speculation on my part obviously.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    But then he’d really be speaking out both sides of his mouth. <br />
    <br />
    Chiding the USGA for not communicating with the players but not thinking communicating with the USGA would be worth his time. <br />
    <br />
    It plausible but makes him look even worse.
    Posted:
  • deadsolid...shankdeadsolid...shank ClubWRX  15232WRX Points: 1,276Posts: 15,232 ClubWRX
    Joined:  #604
    b.helts wrote:
    <br />
    <br />
    JT May also realize what a lesson in futility it likely would have been to take one of those calls. It wouldn’t have accomplished anything for him, so why dive in deeper? The USGA is likely going to say they had a “very productive conversation “ with JT. Really, why bother? Nothing. Is getting solved. <br />
    <br />
    Just speculation on my part obviously.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    But then he’d really be speaking out both sides of his mouth. <br />
    <br />
    Chiding the USGA for not communicating with the players but not thinking communicating with the USGA would be worth his time. <br />
    <br />
    It plausible but makes him look even worse.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    Good point. Quite honestly it’s gone on so long that I had forgotten about him saying something about lack of communication.
    Posted:

  • bladehunterbladehunter south carolinaMembers  30917WRX Points: 7,193Handicap: NONEPosts: 30,917 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  edited Mar 9, 2019 #605
    <br />
    JT May also realize what a lesson in futility it likely would have been to take one of those calls. It wouldn’t have accomplished anything for him, so why dive in deeper? The USGA is likely going to say they had a “very productive conversation “ with JT. Really, why bother? Nothing. Is getting solved. <br />
    <br />
    Just speculation on my part obviously.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    Yea that’s been my point. Why give them ammo to claim “ communication “ occurred. Lol communication is when two sides talk and two sides listen. And actually consider each other’s points. <br />
    <br />
    <br />
    I need to go hit more balls. I’m sure In a cynical mood.
    Posted:
  • davep043davep043 Members  5169WRX Points: 2,366Handicap: 6.3Posts: 5,169 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #606
    I've thought about this, about the idea that communication needs to be back and forth. At this stage of the season, most of what needs to happen is for the USGA (and PGA Rules officials) to explain the way the rules are going to work, and to explain the reason they were written that way. ts one thing to listen, but is it really appropriate to think that the rules will be changed after a few weeks of experience with them? What does anyone think the R&A or USGA should do in their communications? And I'm not trying to push my opinion right now, I'm asking what you think they should do? Abandon rules that they've spent a lot of time to develop? Explain that the rules were developed for specific reasons, and that they're not changing right away? What you guys think the Ruling Bodies should have done in their communications with the Tour players?
    Posted:

    Home is Reston, Virgina, with regular visits to Southern Pines, NC

  • KevCarterKevCarter WisconsinClubWRX  12933WRX Points: 480Posts: 12,933 ClubWRX
    Joined:  edited Mar 10, 2019 #607
    davep043 wrote:
    <br />
    I've thought about this, about the idea that communication needs to be back and forth. At this stage of the season, most of what needs to happen is for the USGA (and PGA Rules officials) to explain the way the rules are going to work, and to explain the reason they were written that way. ts one thing to listen, but is it really appropriate to think that the rules will be changed after a few weeks of experience with them? What does anyone think the R&A or USGA should do in their communications? And I'm not trying to push my opinion right now, I'm asking what you think they should do? Abandon rules that they've spent a lot of time to develop? Explain that the rules were developed for specific reasons, and that they're not changing right away? What you guys think the Ruling Bodies should have done in their communications with the Tour players?<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    In my opinion, the commissioner of the PGA Tour has gone on record saying they were involved EVERY step of the way with the changes. They represent the Tour Players, they should be, and should have been, responsible for educating their players. In this situation, the PGA Tour players should not have gone after the USGA in any way, shape, or form.
    Posted:
    I could be wrong
    I've been wrong before
    I'll be wrong again
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • davep043davep043 Members  5169WRX Points: 2,366Handicap: 6.3Posts: 5,169 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #608
    turtlekc wrote:
    <br />
    davep043 wrote:
    <br />
    I've thought about this, about the idea that communication needs to be back and forth. At this stage of the season, most of what needs to happen is for the USGA (and PGA Rules officials) to explain the way the rules are going to work, and to explain the reason they were written that way. ts one thing to listen, but is it really appropriate to think that the rules will be changed after a few weeks of experience with them? What does anyone think the R&A or USGA should do in their communications? And I'm not trying to push my opinion right now, I'm asking what you think they should do? Abandon rules that they've spent a lot of time to develop? Explain that the rules were developed for specific reasons, and that they're not changing right away? What you guys think the Ruling Bodies should have done in their communications with the Tour players?<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    In my opinion, the commissioner of the PGA Tour has gone on record saying they were involved EVERY step of the way with the changes. They represent the Tour Players, they should be, and should have been, responsible for educating their players. In this situation, the PGA Tour players should not have gone after the USGA in any way, shape, or form.<br />
    <br />
    If you read the past 20 pages of this post, you'll see I agree. But I think it fair to ask some of those with opposing views to clarify just what they think the Ruling Bodies should have done differently.
    Posted:

    Home is Reston, Virgina, with regular visits to Southern Pines, NC

  • KevCarterKevCarter WisconsinClubWRX  12933WRX Points: 480Posts: 12,933 ClubWRX
    Joined:  edited Mar 10, 2019 #609
    davep043 wrote:
    <br />
    turtlekc wrote:
    <br />
    davep043 wrote:
    <br />
    I've thought about this, about the idea that communication needs to be back and forth. At this stage of the season, most of what needs to happen is for the USGA (and PGA Rules officials) to explain the way the rules are going to work, and to explain the reason they were written that way. ts one thing to listen, but is it really appropriate to think that the rules will be changed after a few weeks of experience with them? What does anyone think the R&A or USGA should do in their communications? And I'm not trying to push my opinion right now, I'm asking what you think they should do? Abandon rules that they've spent a lot of time to develop? Explain that the rules were developed for specific reasons, and that they're not changing right away? What you guys think the Ruling Bodies should have done in their communications with the Tour players?<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    In my opinion, the commissioner of the PGA Tour has gone on record saying they were involved EVERY step of the way with the changes. They represent the Tour Players, they should be, and should have been, responsible for educating their players. In this situation, the PGA Tour players should not have gone after the USGA in any way, shape, or form.<br />
    <br />
    If you read the past 20 pages of this post, you'll see I agree. But I think it fair to ask some of those with opposing views to clarify just what they think the Ruling Bodies should have done differently.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    ABSOLUTELY. I'm sorry Dave, my mini diatribe wasn't directed at you, I was just giving my point of view in response to your question...
    Posted:
    I could be wrong
    I've been wrong before
    I'll be wrong again
  • Ashley SchaefferAshley Schaeffer Members  2801WRX Points: 1,098Posts: 2,801 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #610
    davep043 wrote:
    <br />
    turtlekc wrote:
    <br />
    davep043 wrote:
    <br />
    I've thought about this, about the idea that communication needs to be back and forth. At this stage of the season, most of what needs to happen is for the USGA (and PGA Rules officials) to explain the way the rules are going to work, and to explain the reason they were written that way. ts one thing to listen, but is it really appropriate to think that the rules will be changed after a few weeks of experience with them? What does anyone think the R&A or USGA should do in their communications? And I'm not trying to push my opinion right now, I'm asking what you think they should do? Abandon rules that they've spent a lot of time to develop? Explain that the rules were developed for specific reasons, and that they're not changing right away? What you guys think the Ruling Bodies should have done in their communications with the Tour players?<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    In my opinion, the commissioner of the PGA Tour has gone on record saying they were involved EVERY step of the way with the changes. They represent the Tour Players, they should be, and should have been, responsible for educating their players. In this situation, the PGA Tour players should not have gone after the USGA in any way, shape, or form.<br />
    <br />
    If you read the past 20 pages of this post, you'll see I agree. But I think it fair to ask some of those with opposing views to clarify just what they think the Ruling Bodies should have done differently.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    Don't lie about tour players on Twitter and then refuse to apologize for lying.
    Posted:
    8.5* TS3 - Evenflow White T-1100
    15* M2 2017
    18* M2 2017
    4-PW Mizuno JPX850F
    SM7 50*, 54*, 60*
    SC Newport Two
  • nsxguynsxguy Just anudder user FloridaMembers  7170WRX Points: 1,381Handicap: 3.9-9.3-7.7 (Health issue)Posts: 7,170 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #611
    <br />
    davep043 wrote:
    <br />
    turtlekc wrote:
    <br />
    davep043 wrote:
    <br />
    I've thought about this, about the idea that communication needs to be back and forth. At this stage of the season, most of what needs to happen is for the USGA (and PGA Rules officials) to explain the way the rules are going to work, and to explain the reason they were written that way. ts one thing to listen, but is it really appropriate to think that the rules will be changed after a few weeks of experience with them? What does anyone think the R&A or USGA should do in their communications? And I'm not trying to push my opinion right now, I'm asking what you think they should do? Abandon rules that they've spent a lot of time to develop? Explain that the rules were developed for specific reasons, and that they're not changing right away? What you guys think the Ruling Bodies should have done in their communications with the Tour players?<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    In my opinion, the commissioner of the PGA Tour has gone on record saying they were involved EVERY step of the way with the changes. They represent the Tour Players, they should be, and should have been, responsible for educating their players. In this situation, the PGA Tour players should not have gone after the USGA in any way, shape, or form.<br />
    <br />
    If you read the past 20 pages of this post, you'll see I agree. But I think it fair to ask some of those with opposing views to clarify just what they think the Ruling Bodies should have done differently.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    Don't lie about tour players on Twitter and then refuse to apologize for lying.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    You sure are a "one trick pony".<br />
    <br />
    AXWXY.gif
    Posted:

  • Ashley SchaefferAshley Schaeffer Members  2801WRX Points: 1,098Posts: 2,801 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #612
    It's the only one I need to respond to the question.
    Posted:
    8.5* TS3 - Evenflow White T-1100
    15* M2 2017
    18* M2 2017
    4-PW Mizuno JPX850F
    SM7 50*, 54*, 60*
    SC Newport Two
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • b.heltsb.helts Members  3246WRX Points: 745Posts: 3,246 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #613
    <br />
    It's the only one I need to respond to the question.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    Unless the think the only thing the USGA should have done different is not sent that one tweet, you didn’t answer the question. <br />
    <br />
    Do you think the only thing the USGA should have done different is not sent that tweet?
    Posted:
  • nsxguynsxguy Just anudder user FloridaMembers  7170WRX Points: 1,381Handicap: 3.9-9.3-7.7 (Health issue)Posts: 7,170 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #614
    <br />
    It's the only one I need to respond to the question.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    That wasn't the "question". The question was what could have been done differently "to clarify just what they think the Ruling Bodies should have done differently" vis-a-vis communicating the rules with the players.<br />
    <br />
    But then you already knew that. <img src='http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':rolleyes:' /><br />
    <br />
    But as far as "lying" goes, you very well know the PR guy's message was done "tongue in cheek" in response to Justin's whining. Poor choice ? Sure. Pretty much everyone has said that.<br />
    <br />
    But Justin said " I more so say things in hopes that the USGA starts communicating with the current players to better the game and the sport".<br />
    <br />
    So is Justin saying that the PGA Tour didn't communicate the Rules to ALL their members ? SHOULD the USGA have communicated directly with every one of the Tour players ? <br />
    <br />
    So is Justin "lying" too ? Or is he just trying to "slip one by" us by saying the USGA didn't communicate,,,,,,,,,,,,,, even though the PGA Tour obviously did ? Or was the Tour lying also ? <img src='http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':rolleyes:' />
    Posted:

  • Swisstrader98Swisstrader98 Members  3614WRX Points: 241Posts: 3,614 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  edited Mar 10, 2019 #615
    nsxguy wrote:
    <br />
    <br />
    <br />
    <br />
    <br />
    You've got the roles confused.<br />
    <br />
    The USGA makes the rules for all 100% of golfers.<br />
    <br />
    The elite players' Tours choose to follow those same rules. The USGA does not and cannot make them do it.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    Sorry if I wasn't clear. Your post is exactly what I've been trying to say. The USGA is trying to make workable rules for all golfers in a world where the game on TV is more removed from everyday golf than it's ever been, and that gap will continue to widen. The PGA Tour is under no obligation to adopt the USGA's rules. AS the gap between the games widens, it will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    Help me out here.<br />
    <br />
    Are you saying that the USGA/R&A make rules for all golfers around the world, AND that the PGA Tour (and all the other Tours) follow those rules, AND.... that that's a problem?<br />
    <br />
    The PGA Tour might choose to make their own rules and truly start to play a game different to the rest of us, but I can't see that being all that popular.<br />
    <br />
    They could make the cup much smaller, or larger. Not sure that would improve their appeal for the rest of us.<br />
    <br />
    They could drop from a different height, or allow their caddies to stand behind them. Not sure that's going to attract a lot of new viewers to their game, or drive any from the rest of the world's game.<br />
    <br />
    How do you see it playing out? What different rules do you think the Tours might adopt?<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    I'm not saying it's a problem presently. [background=transparent]Like I've said before, these rule changes probably aren't enough to drive a sea change. [/background]I see that it could become a problem if more and more players on tour disagree with what the USGA does. I also believe something will be done in the next 20 years if everything continues on this trajectory. IDK what the differences could be between PGA Tour Rules and USGA Rules. I'm simply pointing out that the USGA probably shouldn't seek to advance such an eventuality by pissing off players by lying about them on Twitter.<br />
    <br />
    As for the popularity of a potential split and its influence on the everyday game, I'll ask this: If the PGA Tour allowed anchoring tomorrow, do you think there might be more belly putters on the rack at the superstores, or would there still be zero?<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    1) AFAIK, this ("lying" about a player) was one time thing; a poor reaction to being chided. It was admitted to and apologized for and not likely to occur again. Let's not make it sound like this is an everyday occurrence.<br />
    <br />
    2) You have a very small percentage of players complaining. Haven't heard a peep from Li. And while there are a few pros other than Rickie and Justin mentioning not liking the new Rules (or some such), they're not whining about them. They're saying things like "We'll get used to them". Maybe THEY actually read about the major changes coming ?<br />
    <br />
    3) You need to get out more. Bettinardi and Odyssey have long putters on the rack right now.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    1) Are you being serious?? A poor reaction? Not likely to occur again? Should simply be chided? Cmon dude...the USGA is supposed to be ALL ABOUT integrity and ethics. The RULES that the USGA protects like the 10 commandments coming down from the mountains are ALL ABOUT integrity and ethics. This is not a minor slip or a small indiscretion...they outright lied,,,they blatantly lied. No excuse at any level for that and not a minor infraction. <br />
    2) Small percentage of players complaining? Seems like there’s a bunch and you’re not hearing from some people simply because they don’t want to make any trouble or may not be confrontational types. Li for example is not one of the stars of the game and is Asian...Asians are typically not going to get in anyone’s face and be confrontational. Just not how they roll. <br />
    3. Long putters on the rack? Funny, because as I type this I just left my beloved PGA Superstore and there was one long putter on the rack and that was a used putter.
    Posted:
  • Ashley SchaefferAshley Schaeffer Members  2801WRX Points: 1,098Posts: 2,801 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  edited Mar 10, 2019 #616
    b.helts wrote:
    <br />
    <br />
    It's the only one I need to respond to the question.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    Unless the think the only thing the USGA should have done different is not sent that one tweet, you didn’t answer the question. <br />
    <br />
    Do you think the only thing the USGA should have done different is not sent that tweet?<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    No. The tweet and the non-apology. Other than that, I don't have an issue. The players sure do, but I don't.
    Posted:
    8.5* TS3 - Evenflow White T-1100
    15* M2 2017
    18* M2 2017
    4-PW Mizuno JPX850F
    SM7 50*, 54*, 60*
    SC Newport Two
  • Ashley SchaefferAshley Schaeffer Members  2801WRX Points: 1,098Posts: 2,801 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #617
    nsxguy wrote:
    <br />
    <br />
    It's the only one I need to respond to the question.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    That wasn't the "question". The question was what could have been done differently "to clarify just what they think the Ruling Bodies should have done differently" vis-a-vis communicating the rules with the players.<br />
    <br />
    But then you already knew that. <img src='http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':rolleyes:' /><br />
    <br />
    But as far as "lying" goes, you very well know the PR guy's message was done "tongue in cheek" in response to Justin's whining. Poor choice ? Sure. Pretty much everyone has said that.<br />
    <br />
    But Justin said " I more so say things in hopes that the USGA starts communicating with the current players to better the game and the sport".<br />
    <br />
    So is Justin saying that the PGA Tour didn't communicate the Rules to ALL their members ? SHOULD the USGA have communicated directly with every one of the Tour players ? <br />
    <br />
    So is Justin "lying" too ? Or is he just trying to "slip one by" us by saying the USGA didn't communicate,,,,,,,,,,,,,, even though the PGA Tour obviously did ? Or was the Tour lying also ? <img src='http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':rolleyes:' /><br />
    <br />
    <br />
    I think lying about a player and then failing to apologize is what the USGA did wrong. I can't answer the question about communicating with players any differently than that.
    Posted:
    8.5* TS3 - Evenflow White T-1100
    15* M2 2017
    18* M2 2017
    4-PW Mizuno JPX850F
    SM7 50*, 54*, 60*
    SC Newport Two
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • nsxguynsxguy Just anudder user FloridaMembers  7170WRX Points: 1,381Handicap: 3.9-9.3-7.7 (Health issue)Posts: 7,170 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #618
    <br />
    nsxguy wrote:
    <br />
    <br />
    It's the only one I need to respond to the question.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    That wasn't the "question". The question was what could have been done differently "to clarify just what they think the Ruling Bodies should have done differently" vis-a-vis communicating the rules with the players.<br />
    <br />
    But then you already knew that. <img src='http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':rolleyes:' /><br />
    <br />
    But as far as "lying" goes, you very well know the PR guy's message was done "tongue in cheek" in response to Justin's whining. Poor choice ? Sure. Pretty much everyone has said that.<br />
    <br />
    But Justin said " I more so say things in hopes that the USGA starts communicating with the current players to better the game and the sport".<br />
    <br />
    So is Justin saying that the PGA Tour didn't communicate the Rules to ALL their members ? SHOULD the USGA have communicated directly with every one of the Tour players ?<br />
    <br />
    So is Justin "lying" too ? Or is he just trying to "slip one by" us by saying the USGA didn't communicate,,,,,,,,,,,,,, even though the PGA Tour obviously did ? Or was the Tour lying also ? <img src='http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':rolleyes:' /><br />
    <br />
    <br />
    I think lying about a player and then failing to apologize is what the USGA did wrong. I can't answer the question about communicating with players any differently than that.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    Translation - you don't WANT to answer/reply to any of the other questions/statements. Not part of your agenda.<br />
    <br />
    No problem. Everybody gets it. <img src='http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/hi.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':hi:' />
    Posted:

  • Ashley SchaefferAshley Schaeffer Members  2801WRX Points: 1,098Posts: 2,801 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  edited Mar 10, 2019 #619
    The question was: what should the USGA have done differently in communicating with players re: the new rules.<br />
    <br />
    I provided my answer based on my opinion. Twice.<br />
    <br />
    I'm not sure what more you want.
    Posted:
    8.5* TS3 - Evenflow White T-1100
    15* M2 2017
    18* M2 2017
    4-PW Mizuno JPX850F
    SM7 50*, 54*, 60*
    SC Newport Two
  • davep043davep043 Members  5169WRX Points: 2,366Handicap: 6.3Posts: 5,169 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #620
    davep043 wrote:
    <br />
    I've thought about this, about the idea that communication needs to be back and forth. At this stage of the season, most of what needs to happen is for the USGA (and PGA Rules officials) to explain the way the rules are going to work, and to explain the reason they were written that way. ts one thing to listen, but is it really appropriate to think that the rules will be changed after a few weeks of experience with them? What does anyone think the R&A or USGA should do in their communications? And I'm not trying to push my opinion right now, I'm asking what you think they should do? Abandon rules that they've spent a lot of time to develop? Explain that the rules were developed for specific reasons, and that they're not changing right away? What you guys think the Ruling Bodies should have done in their communications with the Tour players?<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    The question was: what should the USGA have done differently in communicating with players re: the new rules.<br />
    <br />
    I provided my answer based on my opinion. Twice.<br />
    <br />
    I'm not sure what more you want.<br />
    <br />
    If you go back a few more posts you'll see my original question, and the background for it. I wasn't asking about twitter posts after the fact, tweets are communication with the vast twitterverse, not specifically with the players. I was asking about player meetings and other situations where other posters have speculated that the USGA communication was "one-way".
    Posted:

    Home is Reston, Virgina, with regular visits to Southern Pines, NC

  • bladehunterbladehunter south carolinaMembers  30917WRX Points: 7,193Handicap: NONEPosts: 30,917 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #621
    Now. Let’s roll that back a little. <br />
    <br />
    Can we really now argue that the USGA has spent took much time and money on a rule to revise it after implementation? When I made an argument about cost of a rule ( time and $) it was as if they were free. Lol.
    Posted:
  • bladehunterbladehunter south carolinaMembers  30917WRX Points: 7,193Handicap: NONEPosts: 30,917 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #622
    I say the above partially in jest. But.... <br />
    <br />
    <br />
    To answer your question Dave. What should the communication look like ? <br />
    <br />
    I think it should be the same as if it were 8 months ago. If the rule stands up to criticism then it does. If it doesn’t ( like the caddie line up before they revised it ) it doesn’t and should be changed promptly to something that works. Closed minded conversation is absolutely worthless.
    Posted:
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • davep043davep043 Members  5169WRX Points: 2,366Handicap: 6.3Posts: 5,169 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #623
    <br />
    I say the above partially in jest. But....<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    To answer your question Dave. What should the communication look like ?<br />
    <br />
    I think it should be the same as if it were 8 months ago. If the rule stands up to criticism then it does. If it doesn't ( like the caddie line up before they revised it ) it doesn't and should be changed promptly to something that works. Closed minded conversation is absolutely worthless.<br />
    <br />
    This is an area in which we won't agree. At some point, the revision process has to end, we have to have rules to play within, not rules that might change tomorrow. I can't agree to reverse rules changes with just a few weeks of experience, in my opinion its important to allow time to see how things work once players learn and adapt. Its one thing to tweak a rule, as was done pretty quickly with the caddie alignment rule, its a different thing to reverse it completely. So if "close-minded" means that "We're not changing this rule right now", I think its appropriate at this point in time. If we were getting into November or December, with a pretty full season of golf to review, it might be a different conversation.<br />
    <br />
    We might also disagree on whether the revised caddie alignment rule works. To me, it has been effective, with only two penalties being applied over tens of thousands of holes played on various professional tours.
    Posted:

    Home is Reston, Virgina, with regular visits to Southern Pines, NC

  • bladehunterbladehunter south carolinaMembers  30917WRX Points: 7,193Handicap: NONEPosts: 30,917 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  edited Mar 11, 2019 #624
    davep043 wrote:
    <br />
    <br />
    I say the above partially in jest. But....<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    To answer your question Dave. What should the communication look like ?<br />
    <br />
    I think it should be the same as if it were 8 months ago. If the rule stands up to criticism then it does. If it doesn't ( like the caddie line up before they revised it ) it doesn't and should be changed promptly to something that works. Closed minded conversation is absolutely worthless.<br />
    <br />
    This is an area in which we won't agree. At some point, the revision process has to end, we have to have rules to play within, not rules that might change tomorrow. I can't agree to reverse rules changes with just a few weeks of experience, in my opinion its important to allow time to see how things work once players learn and adapt. Its one thing to tweak a rule, as was done pretty quickly with the caddie alignment rule, its a different thing to reverse it completely. So if "close-minded" means that "We're not changing this rule right now", I think its appropriate at this point in time. If we were getting into November or December, with a pretty full season of golf to review, it might be a different conversation.<br />
    <br />
    We might also disagree on whether the revised caddie alignment rule works. To me, it has been effective, with only two penalties being applied over tens of thousands of holes played on various professional tours.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    <br />
    yea.. i just see it as opposite... if you give the old " its too soon to change anything " it gets much easier to give the " we arent changing it now after a year " excuse... Thats the old frog in a pot slow death method. Quicker the better to change something if it doesnt work in my opinion ... Im not a hige fan of the caddie alignment rule, but since they can backoff and reset its livable from a fairness standpoint. But before that it wasnt for me . They griped loudly and got it changed quickly.. Thats much much better for the game than saying " we will revisit it in a year " ... The only thing worse than making a bad decision , is doubling down and standing by that bad call and pretending its good.
    Posted:
  • Ignatius ReillyIgnatius Reilly Members  498WRX Points: 205Handicap: 14Posts: 498 Greens
    Joined:  #625
    <br />
    davep043 wrote:
    <br />
    <br />
    I say the above partially in jest. But....<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    To answer your question Dave. What should the communication look like ?<br />
    <br />
    I think it should be the same as if it were 8 months ago. If the rule stands up to criticism then it does. If it doesn't ( like the caddie line up before they revised it ) it doesn't and should be changed promptly to something that works. Closed minded conversation is absolutely worthless.<br />
    <br />
    This is an area in which we won't agree. At some point, the revision process has to end, we have to have rules to play within, not rules that might change tomorrow. I can't agree to reverse rules changes with just a few weeks of experience, in my opinion its important to allow time to see how things work once players learn and adapt. Its one thing to tweak a rule, as was done pretty quickly with the caddie alignment rule, its a different thing to reverse it completely. So if "close-minded" means that "We're not changing this rule right now", I think its appropriate at this point in time. If we were getting into November or December, with a pretty full season of golf to review, it might be a different conversation.<br />
    <br />
    We might also disagree on whether the revised caddie alignment rule works. To me, it has been effective, with only two penalties being applied over tens of thousands of holes played on various professional tours.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    <br />
    yea.. i just see it as opposite... if you give the old " its too soon to change anything " it gets much easier to give the " we arent changing it now after a year " excuse... Thats the old frog in a pot slow death method. Quicker the better to change something if it doesnt work in my opinion ... Im not a hige fan of the caddie alignment rule, but since they can backoff and reset its livable from a fairness standpoint. But before that it wasnt for me . They griped loudly and got it changed quickly.. Thats much much better for the game than saying " we will revisit it in a year " ... The only thing worse than making a bad decision , is doubling down and standing by that bad call and pretending its good.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    While I get what you are saying, I also get that the rules do need to get stabilized for a period of time.<br />
    <br />
    I cannot imagine watching Pro golf tournaments in which the rules are slightly different every month - even if they're an improvement. I don't have the time, energy or interest in trying to keep up with that scenario.<br />
    <br />
    And I really can't imagine how many penalties Ricky and Justin would get, given their approach to following this year's changes.
    Posted:
  • bladehunterbladehunter south carolinaMembers  30917WRX Points: 7,193Handicap: NONEPosts: 30,917 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #626
    Nobody is talking change one every time someone doesn’t like a ruling. We’re talking change based on the new rules. The change should come fast if an issue arises. Not later . They can’t stabilize until they are correct. The caddie alignment rule wasn’t correct as it rolled out. You can’t continue to call penalties for where a caddie stands minutes before a shot takes place. So they amended it to include a backoff reset. So the onus is back on the player. Waiting a year to do that would have been criminal as far as the pro tours go. We’re talking millions in lost revenue for players who would no doubt receive these penalties that mean nothing. Caddies stance well before a player setups to hit is meaningless to the game and the field.
    Posted:
  • davep043davep043 Members  5169WRX Points: 2,366Handicap: 6.3Posts: 5,169 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #627
    <br />
    Nobody is talking change one every time someone doesn't like a ruling. We're talking change based on the new rules. The change should come fast if an issue arises. Not later . They can't stabilize until they are correct. The caddie alignment rule wasn't correct as it rolled out. You can't continue to call penalties for where a caddie stands minutes before a shot takes place. So they amended it to include a backoff reset. So the onus is back on the player. Waiting a year to do that would have been criminal as far as the pro tours go. We're talking millions in lost revenue for players who would no doubt receive these penalties that mean nothing. Caddies stance well before a player setups to hit is meaningless to the game and the field.<br />
    <br />
    And now we do agree, I think the caddie alignment rule needed to be tweaked, and it was. The Ruling Bodies were watching, as is appropriate, and responded both to what they observed as well as to the players' stated concerns.<br />
    <br />
    I don't think the other major issue for the players, the "silly" drop rule, needs to be tweaked. From my experience, and from watching on TV, it appears to be successful in fulfilling its stated goal. If the only objection is the "silly" appearance, and that's the only thing I've heard, that's not a valid reason to reverse course. The players said that from the start, and haven't added any additional reasoning for changing it. I haven't heard a single player indicate that he understands the goal of the changed drop rules. Its one thing to want to be listened to, its another to insist that the "opposing side" agree with your complaints.
    Posted:

    Home is Reston, Virgina, with regular visits to Southern Pines, NC

  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • Ashley SchaefferAshley Schaeffer Members  2801WRX Points: 1,098Posts: 2,801 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  edited Mar 11, 2019 #628
    davep043 wrote:
    <br />
    davep043 wrote:
    <br />
    I've thought about this, about the idea that communication needs to be back and forth. At this stage of the season, most of what needs to happen is for the USGA (and PGA Rules officials) to explain the way the rules are going to work, and to explain the reason they were written that way. ts one thing to listen, but is it really appropriate to think that the rules will be changed after a few weeks of experience with them? What does anyone think the R&A or USGA should do in their communications? And I'm not trying to push my opinion right now, I'm asking what you think they should do? Abandon rules that they've spent a lot of time to develop? Explain that the rules were developed for specific reasons, and that they're not changing right away? What you guys think the Ruling Bodies should have done in their communications with the Tour players?<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    The question was: what should the USGA have done differently in communicating with players re: the new rules.<br />
    <br />
    I provided my answer based on my opinion. Twice.<br />
    <br />
    I'm not sure what more you want.<br />
    <br />
    If you go back a few more posts you'll see my original question, and the background for it. I wasn't asking about twitter posts after the fact, tweets are communication with the vast twitterverse, not specifically with the players. I was asking about player meetings and other situations where other posters have speculated that the USGA communication was "one-way".<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    I didn't read that into the bold, but I would definitely categorize lying about a player canceling meetings in a tweet that specifically tags said player, and publishing it for the world to see, qualifies as a direct communication about a player meeting and/or "other situation". It came from the USGA friggin' PR team, haha!
    Posted:
    8.5* TS3 - Evenflow White T-1100
    15* M2 2017
    18* M2 2017
    4-PW Mizuno JPX850F
    SM7 50*, 54*, 60*
    SC Newport Two
  • davep043davep043 Members  5169WRX Points: 2,366Handicap: 6.3Posts: 5,169 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #629
    <br />
    davep043 wrote:
    <br />
    davep043 wrote:
    <br />
    I've thought about this, about the idea that communication needs to be back and forth. At this stage of the season, most of what needs to happen is for the USGA (and PGA Rules officials) to explain the way the rules are going to work, and to explain the reason they were written that way. ts one thing to listen, but is it really appropriate to think that the rules will be changed after a few weeks of experience with them? What does anyone think the R&A or USGA should do in their communications? And I'm not trying to push my opinion right now, I'm asking what you think they should do? Abandon rules that they've spent a lot of time to develop? Explain that the rules were developed for specific reasons, and that they're not changing right away? What you guys think the Ruling Bodies should have done in their communications with the Tour players?<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    The question was: what should the USGA have done differently in communicating with players re: the new rules.<br />
    <br />
    I provided my answer based on my opinion. Twice.<br />
    <br />
    I'm not sure what more you want.<br />
    <br />
    If you go back a few more posts you'll see my original question, and the background for it. I wasn't asking about twitter posts after the fact, tweets are communication with the vast twitterverse, not specifically with the players. I was asking about player meetings and other situations where other posters have speculated that the USGA communication was "one-way".<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    I didn't read that into the bold, but I would definitely categorize lying about a player canceling meetings in a tweet that specifically tags said player, and publishes it for the world to see, qualifies as a direct communication about a player meeting and/or "other situation". It came from the USGA friggin' PR team, haha!<br />
    <br />
    I'm sorry, I was trying to move the conversation in a slightly different direction. You obviously prefer to<br />
    <img src='http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/deadhorse.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':deadhorse:' />
    Posted:

    Home is Reston, Virgina, with regular visits to Southern Pines, NC

  • Ashley SchaefferAshley Schaeffer Members  2801WRX Points: 1,098Posts: 2,801 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  edited Mar 11, 2019 #630
    davep043 wrote:
    <br />
    <br />
    davep043 wrote:
    <br />
    davep043 wrote:
    <br />
    I've thought about this, about the idea that communication needs to be back and forth. At this stage of the season, most of what needs to happen is for the USGA (and PGA Rules officials) to explain the way the rules are going to work, and to explain the reason they were written that way. ts one thing to listen, but is it really appropriate to think that the rules will be changed after a few weeks of experience with them? What does anyone think the R&A or USGA should do in their communications? And I'm not trying to push my opinion right now, I'm asking what you think they should do? Abandon rules that they've spent a lot of time to develop? Explain that the rules were developed for specific reasons, and that they're not changing right away? What you guys think the Ruling Bodies should have done in their communications with the Tour players?<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    The question was: what should the USGA have done differently in communicating with players re: the new rules.<br />
    <br />
    I provided my answer based on my opinion. Twice.<br />
    <br />
    I'm not sure what more you want.<br />
    <br />
    If you go back a few more posts you'll see my original question, and the background for it. I wasn't asking about twitter posts after the fact, tweets are communication with the vast twitterverse, not specifically with the players. I was asking about player meetings and other situations where other posters have speculated that the USGA communication was "one-way".<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    I didn't read that into the bold, but I would definitely categorize lying about a player canceling meetings in a tweet that specifically tags said player, and publishes it for the world to see, qualifies as a direct communication about a player meeting and/or "other situation". It came from the USGA friggin' PR team, haha!<br />
    <br />
    I'm sorry, I was trying to move the conversation in a slightly different direction. You obviously prefer to<br />
    <img src='http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/deadhorse.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':deadhorse:' /><br />
    <br />
    <br />
    It's OK. I was just answering your question. I didn't expect that so many would disagree with my answer, but I still stand by it. <br />
    If you actually take my answer for its reverse implication, you'll note that I don't think the USGA did anything wrong in communicating with the players until the tweet and non-apology, but you'd rather attempt to hurl an insult.
    Posted:
    8.5* TS3 - Evenflow White T-1100
    15* M2 2017
    18* M2 2017
    4-PW Mizuno JPX850F
    SM7 50*, 54*, 60*
    SC Newport Two
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • new2g0lfnew2g0lf Members  3449WRX Points: 363Posts: 3,449 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #631
    davep043 wrote:
    <br />
    <br />
    Nobody is talking change one every time someone doesn't like a ruling. We're talking change based on the new rules. The change should come fast if an issue arises. Not later . They can't stabilize until they are correct. The caddie alignment rule wasn't correct as it rolled out. You can't continue to call penalties for where a caddie stands minutes before a shot takes place. So they amended it to include a backoff reset. So the onus is back on the player. Waiting a year to do that would have been criminal as far as the pro tours go. We're talking millions in lost revenue for players who would no doubt receive these penalties that mean nothing. Caddies stance well before a player setups to hit is meaningless to the game and the field.<br />
    <br />
    And now we do agree, I think the caddie alignment rule needed to be tweaked, and it was. The Ruling Bodies were watching, as is appropriate, and responded both to what they observed as well as to the players' stated concerns.<br />
    <br />
    I don't think the other major issue for the players, the "silly" drop rule, needs to be tweaked. From my experience, and from watching on TV, it appears to be successful in fulfilling its stated goal. If the only objection is the "silly" appearance, and that's the only thing I've heard, that's not a valid reason to reverse course. The players said that from the start, and haven't added any additional reasoning for changing it. I haven't heard a single player indicate that he understands the goal of the changed drop rules. Its one thing to want to be listened to, its another to insist that the "opposing side" agree with your complaints.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    I agree, the USGA fixed the caddie alignment because it needed to be. I don't see the issue with the drop rule, to someone that's never watched golf before standing with an outstretched arm or dropping from the knee looks equally silly. <br />
    <br />
    After a full season, the USGA can review the number of ball placements from the knee compared to previous years and determine if the desired results were achieved.
    Posted:
    Driver - Home Callaway Epic Flash   Away Callaway Rogue Sub Zero 
    Woods - XXIO 10 3W
    Hybrids - XXIO 10 3H, 4H, 5H
    Irons - Home - PXG Gen 2 0311P 5-SW   Away - Callaway Apex CF-19 5-SW
    Wedge - PXG 58* 
    Putter - Seemore Nashville mFGP2 SS Mallet Black
    Ball - KSig, TM TP5X, Snell MTB
22

Leave a Comment

Rich Text Editor. To edit a paragraph's style, hit tab to get to the paragraph menu. From there you will be able to pick one style. Nothing defaults to paragraph. An inline formatting menu will show up when you select text. Hit tab to get into that menu. Some elements, such as rich link embeds, images, loading indicators, and error messages may get inserted into the editor. You may navigate to these using the arrow keys inside of the editor and delete them with the delete or backspace key.