Biggest Golf Pet Peeve

[sandycove]

In defence of starters (having been one) and rangers, their purpose is simply to eliminate conflict, establish order, illuminate local rules and move things along in the most expeditious manner possible. Clearly, some do this better than others and some are notoriously imperious -- Colin Montgomerie’s father at Troon was a prime example.

On singles (although admittedly a grand way to enjoy the day), they, by rule, have no standing on the golf course and are almost always impractical -- a steady flow of foursomes is always preferable and two-somes, unless engaged in a formal match, are discouraged as well.

One perceptual difficulty with precedence and speed of play is the cultural disconnect between the folks in the U.K. who originated the rules and the Americans who attempt to make them their own. Outside the U.S., golf is customarily a matter of affinity, not class, and local competitions are a club-wide weekly, even bi-weekly affair, where players walk, in groups of four. The rules of golf were designed to accommodate this custom; players generally have read and understand the rules and abide by them. Many, if not most players, were taught basic golf etiquette via a junior golf program.

In the U.S., local competitions are not widespread, club membership is almost always a function of class and wealth, course design and operations economics discourage walking, the population on a course is less likely to be acquainted, and very few players actually bother to read and attempt to understand the rules. And, because playing privileges are based on wealth, committee and staff have insufficient authority to insist that high standards are enforced.

It is a difficult chore for the USGA, which is run by upper-class country clubbers, to modify European rules and customs to fit American clubs, publinks and resorts, with their varying needs. And the PGA struggles as well, since modern economics has reduced course professionals in the States to little more than shopkeepers, with almost no authority to influence behaviour without putting their livelihoods in jeopardy.