TaylorMade and Titleist CEO's Speak Up about the USGA and Bifurcation of the Rules

[caniac6]

In Golf World they listed 18 events that have influenced golf. The ProV1 was introduced in 2000, and in three years the average drive increased by 13.2 yards. A reader ,in the same issue, wrote a letter saying that pros are able to hit 570 yd. par 5's with a mid to short iron. and questioning whether the ball is hurting the game at the tour level more than the anchored putter. I'm 58 years old, and I am hitting the ball much further than I did when I was in my 30's. At an age when I should be getting shorter, I'm getting longer. While the anchoring ban affects a small number of golfers, if the USGA rolled back the ball, it would affect everyone. In every other sport people want to see scoring, but the USGA seems to think that there is something wrong with guys making birdies. Mabye golf needs some protection at the highest level, but by some of their actions, I think they could really hurt golf at the recreational level. Other sports have different equipment standards for amateurs, I really don't understand why golf can't do the same.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by CanuckAaron

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Seriously?  By your bizarre definition of discrimination, the Tour would be guilty of it if they didn't allow a player with the yips to putt to a larger hole than everyone else on every green. The NBA would be guilty of it if they didn't allow a player who developed arthritis the right to run with the ball without dribbling it.

Unlike your reference to *actual* discrimination, no one told Casey Martin he couldn't play.  Neither his race, gender, sexual orientation, nor physical disability is keeping him out of tournaments. But that wasn't good enough, so Casey forced the Tour to change the rules for him, and only him.

How is excluding people because of a disability not discrimination? As for the yips comment that is why the Tour and maybe the Supreme Court need to assess the validity of an individual's claim. According to your post it should not even be considered because they can't perform within the rules.

My point had more to do with your position that if it is against the rules it must be excluded. You said that only those who can play within the rules should be allowed to compete. There was a time when race was a requirement within the rules. It is a dangerous position to take that only those who are deemed acceptable by current standards should be allowed to play without consideration for amending the rules.

Whether this applies to Casey Martin I don't know. However I am not so quick to completely discount all of those who may have a legitimate disability from participating at the highest levels of sport because it does not fall within the rules.

Oh good grief!  Get off the soapbox.  Show me when the Rules of Golf ever mentioned race.  You can't, because they never have and never will - that has nothing to do with playing the game.

This isn't about access to a public place.  This is about competing at the highest level of a sport.  That should require that players in such competitions are at the pinnacle of the game within the rules .   Other sports do NOT make accommodations to players who for whatever reason are unable to compete at that level.  They either can or they can't.  If they can't then they become coaches, or they play semi-pro, or they find another activity which they are physically able to do without needing a rules modification.  I can see it now - a guy wants to be a running back in the NFL, but he's not a fast runner.  He petitions the League for a special exemption, they deny it, he takes them to court under the premise that since he's a slower runner, he should be allowed a head start before the ball is snapped.  If that sounds stupid to you, then hooray, you get my point.  That is exactly what you are doing when you make special accommodations for a player with the yips.  Golf requires both physical and mental excellence, and if you can't marry the two up, then competing as a professional probably isn't in the cards for you.

Changing the rules just to provide a crutch for players whose ability has deteriorated opens the door for the complete destruction of the game.  I can't hit a driver 300 yards, so I get a rule change which allows me to use a compressed air cannon for my tee shots.  Yippee, now I can play at the level of all of those players on this forum who seem to routinely drive the ball over the horizon.  Human beings are not all created equal, physically or mentally, and trying to rewrite the rules to accommodate one aspect of that inequality is wrong.  People with certain disabilities who still want to play sports find special leagues which do play in a manner to to address those issues.  If a player wants to create his own golf league which allows use of an anchored stroke, then go for it.  Just don't try to remake the entire game to accommodate it.

One last comment.  Like many golfers, I have chronic lower back trouble.  I can't practice putting for more than 15 or 20 minutes at most, and I usually don't even try.  But that pain is also present in the full swing.  For anyone with lower back issues that is probably going to be true at times.  If they can hit the ball with a full swing then they can figure out how to putt with a normal putting stroke.

Originally Posted by Jspangler

Casey Martins ruling is a ruling within the PGA and the USGA had nothing to do with it. Why can the anchored putter not be the same? The PGA tour can ban the putter and the USGA would have no say in the matter is that so hard. My honest question in what's next? Where will it stop? No more 46" driver? The integrity of the game is a stake here.

You just made my point for me.  Maintaining the integrity of the game is exactly the reasoning behind the prohibition on anchoring.  Thank you.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Jspangler

It is being banned because a couple people won major and the old people behind the scenes didn't like the way it looked. They can word it however they and throw integrety in there so it sounds good. Lets not pretend its anything else. It has been around for many years but no one won consistently with it. Now they are. If it helps steady the hands in tournaments why did the only win 50% of the majors and not one time during the PGA playoffs? Why did Phil's putting get better after switch? The fact is the game is played tee to green and a normal putter wins more than an anchored putter, so once again please show when the advantage is.

Anchoring removes a variable from the putting stroke.  For those who for whatever reason can't figure out how to putt with a normal stroke, it may offer an advantage.  It isn't probably goingto be an advantage to someone who is a good putter using a proper stroke. There are many facets to being a good putter, but making a consistent stroke is a biggie.  Eliminating any possible wobble at the grip end of the putter does make that task easier.  If you can't see that then you have to take off the blindfold.  Nobody denies that the player still has to read the green and start the ball on the right line with the right speed, but pivoting the club around a hinge point simplifies the task of hitting the ball on the chosen line.  It certainly makes the putting stroke less complex than when the hands and club are held away from the body.

Golf is a game of skill, and when you minimize the skill required, you minimize the game.

[Dave2512]

Not to mention that as amatuers we already have a way to even the playing field via our handicaps.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by Jspangler

I am not the one that started the well other sports have conformed rules, maybe you should read all post before commenting, your team examples. My premise, I stated that I that Mark King sounded right in response to someone calling him a Kook. I really don't need anything to stand on as that is MY opinion. Everything escalated from there, yes that was probally mostly me. I don't mind a good debate. And yes my problem is someone telling me what is best for the game, that's like the government telling me what's best to do with my money. Yet no one has said how banning an anchored putter will make the game better/funner.

I'm the one who called him a kook, and I stand by that. He is obviously trying to get the PGA Tour to go up against the USGA and R&A; in an attempt to neutralize them as the arbiters of conformity, but he is barking up the wrong tree. People don't back away from golf because of the rules, they do it because of the cost, and people like Mark King are the ones who perpetuate the prohibitive cost attached to it.

Frankly, I buy all the new stuff a year later because I can usually get it at less than half the cost. I'm looking at a brand new R11 right now that I can get for $199, the same club that my brother paid $399 for less thn a year ago.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by Jspangler

Casey Martins ruling is a ruling within the PGA and the USGA had nothing to do with it. Why can the anchored putter not be the same? The PGA tour can ban the putter and the USGA would have no say in the matter is that so hard. My honest question in what's next? Where will it stop? No more 46" driver? The integrity of the game is a stake here.

The putter is not banned.

As far as rules are concerned, the PGA makes local rules at their tournaments all the time that do not conform with USGA rules.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by phan52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jspangler

Casey Martins ruling is a ruling within the PGA and the USGA had nothing to do with it. Why can the anchored putter not be the same? The PGA tour can ban the putter and the USGA would have no say in the matter is that so hard. My honest question in what's next? Where will it stop? No more 46" driver? The integrity of the game is a stake here.

The putter is not banned.

As far as rules are concerned, the PGA makes local rules at their tournaments all the time that do not conform with USGA rules.

Can you point one out.  Every local rule I've ever seen at a Tour stop is an approved local rule.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Can you point one out.  Every local rule I've ever seen at a Tour stop is an approved local rule.

First of all, I never said anything about "approved" or "not approved". Obviously the PGA talks to the USGA when they make their local rules. But there are plenty of instances where they do things that do not conform with the stated USGA rules. Two in particular are when they put out of bounds stakes in the middle of a golf course, and when they allow drops that are closer to the hole.

[WWBDD]

Originally Posted by phan52

First of all, I never said anything about "approved" or "not approved". Obviously the PGA talks to the USGA when they make their local rules. But there are plenty of instances where they do things that do not conform with the stated USGA rules. Two in particular are when they put out of bounds stakes in the middle of a golf course, and when they allow drops that are closer to the hole.

The Reno/Tahoe Stableford would be another example.

http://www.pga.com/news/pga-tour/reno-tahoe-open-resurrects-modified-stableford-scoring-system-week

Which brings us back to "growing the game" ... there are all sorts of options and modifications to the game that make golf more accessible to beginners; best balls, Stablefords, shorter tees, handicaps, etc.

No one is not going to try golf because of a belly-putter ban.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Mordan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jspangler

Casey Martins ruling is a ruling within the PGA and the USGA had nothing to do with it. Why can the anchored putter not be the same? The PGA tour can ban the putter and the USGA would have no say in the matter is that so hard. My honest question in what's next? Where will it stop? No more 46" driver? The integrity of the game is a stake here.

The use of carts is a condition of competition, a separate matter to the Rules of Golf. The PGA Tour may set whatever conditions of competition they wish, as long as they fall within the Rules of Golf. The definition of what is, or is not, a stoke is defined by the Rules of Golf and the PGA Tour may not re-interpret that without deciding to play a different game to what the rest of the world considers golf. Hardly the same thing

Also, Martin's ruling was a special exemption only for him , not a rule change for the entire tour as the allowance or ban of an anchored putter would be.

Originally Posted by Jspangler

If it helps steady the hands in tournaments why did the only win 50% of the majors and not one time during the PGA playoffs?

If it doesn't help steady the hands, then why do so many people care that it's banned?

And ditto everything fourputt said.

[CanuckAaron]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Oh good grief!  Get off the soapbox.  Show me when the Rules of Golf ever mentioned race.  You can't, because they never have and never will - that has nothing to do with playing the game.

This isn't about access to a public place.  This is about competing at the highest level of a sport.  That should require that players in such competitions are at the pinnacle of the game within the rules.   Other sports do NOT make accommodations to players who for whatever reason are unable to compete at that level.  They either can or they can't.  If they can't then they become coaches, or they play semi-pro, or they find another activity which they are physically able to do without needing a rules modification.  I can see it now - a guy wants to be a running back in the NFL, but he's not a fast runner.  He petitions the League for a special exemption, they deny it, he takes them to court under the premise that since he's a slower runner, he should be allowed a head start before the ball is snapped.  If that sounds stupid to you, then hooray, you get my point.  That is exactly what you are doing when you make special accommodations for a player with the yips.  Golf requires both physical and mental excellence, and if you can't marry the two up, then competing as a professional probably isn't in the cards for you.

Changing the rules just to provide a crutch for players whose ability has deteriorated opens the door for the complete destruction of the game.  I can't hit a driver 300 yards, so I get a rule change which allows me to use a compressed air cannon for my tee shots.  Yippee, now I can play at the level of all of those players on this forum who seem to routinely drive the ball over the horizon.  Human beings are not all created equal, physically or mentally, and trying to rewrite the rules to accommodate one aspect of that inequality is wrong.  People with certain disabilities who still want to play sports find special leagues which do play in a manner to to address those issues.  If a player wants to create his own golf league which allows use of an anchored stroke, then go for it.  Just don't try to remake the entire game to accommodate it.

One last comment.  Like many golfers, I have chronic lower back trouble.  I can't practice putting for more than 15 or 20 minutes at most, and I usually don't even try.  But that pain is also present in the full swing.  For anyone with lower back issues that is probably going to be true at times.  If they can hit the ball with a full swing then they can figure out how to putt with a normal putting stroke.

I never said race was a requirement in the Rules of Golf, we were discussing golf at the highest level and for several decades the PGA had a rule that excluded players that were not white.  Here is a link:

http://www.worldgolfhalloffame.org/hof/member.php?member=1105

The reason I brought it up was to demonstrate how rules change and adapt as people's perceptions change and adapt over time. Rules are not rigid objective "truths" they change over time, even in golf.  I was not suggesting that the current rules need to change, simply that there needs to be an avenue for change.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by CanuckAaron

I never said race was a requirement in the Rules of Golf, we were discussing golf at the highest level and for several decades the PGA had a rule that excluded players that were not white.  Here is a link:

http://www.worldgolfhalloffame.org/hof/member.php?member=1105

The reason I brought it up was to demonstrate how rules change and adapt as people's perceptions change and adapt over time. Rules are not rigid objective "truths" they change over time, even in golf.  I was not suggesting that the current rules need to change, simply that there needs to be an avenue for change.

Yes, the PGA at one time had a "Caucasions only" rule. Which has absolutely nothing to do with equipment rules, and nothing to do with the fact that not everyone has the physical ability to be an elite golfer. Which is why you're not making any sense with your comparisons to racial discrimination.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by CanuckAaron

I never said race was a requirement in the Rules of Golf, we were discussing golf at the highest level and for several decades the PGA had a rule that excluded players that were not white.  Here is a link:

http://www.worldgolfhalloffame.org/hof/member.php?member=1105

The reason I brought it up was to demonstrate how rules change and adapt as people's perceptions change and adapt over time. Rules are not rigid objective "truths" they change over time, even in golf.  I was not suggesting that the current rules need to change, simply that there needs to be an avenue for change.

In other words you are speaking of policy , not rules.

The Rules of Golf may not be "truths" whatever that may be, but they are based on and consistent with the basic fundamentals of the game established more than 250 years ago.  When changes to the rules are implemented, they hold to those fundamental principles as closely as possible while still retaining playability.

Originally Posted by phan52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Can you point one out.  Every local rule I've ever seen at a Tour stop is an approved local rule.

First of all, I never said anything about "approved" or "not approved". Obviously the PGA talks to the USGA when they make their local rules. But there are plenty of instances where they do things that do not conform with the stated USGA rules. Two in particular are when they put out of bounds stakes in the middle of a golf course, and when they allow drops that are closer to the hole.

The following is the definition of Rule from the Rules of Golf.  Note in particular item's b and c.  All of the local rules used in PGA Tournaments conform to the Rules of golf.  Even in those rare instances where relief from a temporary immovable obstruction results in moving the ball closer to the hole, it is done for the sole reason that no other playable option is available.  Such rulings are made only in a case of extreme necessity, and as such are approved by the USGA.

Rule Or Rules

The term “Rule’’ includes:

a. The Rules of Golf and their interpretations as contained in “Decisions on the Rules of Golf”;

b. Any Conditions of Competition established by the Committee under Rule 33-1 and Appendix I;

c. Any Local Rules established by the Committee under Rule 33-8a and Appendix I; and

d. The specifications on:

(i) clubs and the ball in Appendices II and III and their interpretations as contained in “A Guide to the Rules on Clubs and Balls”; and

(ii) devices and other equipment in Appendix IV.

[CanuckAaron]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

In other words you are speaking of policy, not rules.

The Rules of Golf may not be "truths" whatever that may be, but they are based on and consistent with the basic fundamentals of the game established more than 250 years ago.  When changes to the rules are implemented, they hold to those fundamental principles as closely as possible while still retaining playability.

Policies are rules. As for the bold I agree with that but my original post in response to sacm3bill was because he suggested that rules are absolute which is obviously not the case.

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Yes, the PGA at one time had a "Caucasions only" rule. Which has absolutely nothing to do with equipment rules, and nothing to do with the fact that not everyone has the physical ability to be an elite golfer. Which is why you're not making any sense with your comparisons to racial discrimination.

It makes perfect sense, you suggested that people with any type of disability should be barred from competing if they are unable to compete under the current rules and the PGA Tour and/or Supreme Court should not intervene. Throughout golf's history many groups of people have been excluded from playing at the highest level because they were unable to compete under the rules of that time. I am not suggesting they need to allow everyone to compete no matter what, simply that an absolutist stance as it concerns the rules of golf completely ignores the history of golf and the rules for competing at the highest levels.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by CanuckAaron

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

In other words you are speaking of policy, not rules.

The Rules of Golf may not be "truths" whatever that may be, but they are based on and consistent with the basic fundamentals of the game established more than 250 years ago.  When changes to the rules are implemented, they hold to those fundamental principles as closely as possible while still retaining playability.

Policies are rules.  As for the bold I agree with that but my original post in response to sacm3bill was because he suggested that rules are absolute which is obviously not the case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Yes, the PGA at one time had a "Caucasions only" rule. Which has absolutely nothing to do with equipment rules, and nothing to do with the fact that not everyone has the physical ability to be an elite golfer. Which is why you're not making any sense with your comparisons to racial discrimination.

It makes perfect sense, you suggested that people with any type of disability should be barred from competing if they are unable to compete under the current rules and the PGA Tour and/or Supreme Court should not intervene. Throughout golf's history many groups of people have been excluded from playing at the highest level because they were unable to compete under the rules of that time. I am not suggesting they need to allow everyone to compete no matter what, simply that an absolutist stance as it concerns the rules of golf completely ignores the history of golf and the rules for competing at the highest levels.

Last response from me because you either have zero reading comprehension or just like to argue.

NOT ONCE did I say "rules are absolute". I don't mind rules changes - obviously, because I am FOR the rule change in anchoring putting.

NOT ONCE did I say "people with any type of disability should be barred from competing".  My stance on disability is no special allowances should be made for it at the highest level of sports. That isn't even close to "barring" someone from competing.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

The following is the definition of Rule from the Rules of Golf.  Note in particular item's b and c.  All of the local rules used in PGA Tournaments conform to the Rules of golf.  Even in those rare instances where relief from a temporary immovable obstruction results in moving the ball closer to the hole, it is done for the sole reason that no other playable option is available.  Such rulings are made only in a case of extreme necessity, and as such are approved by the USGA.

Which is exactly what I said. Because they are allowing for them, for whatever reason, to breach the rules of golf.

[CanuckAaron]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Last response from me because you either have zero reading comprehension or just like to argue.

NOT ONCE did I say "rules are absolute". I don't mind rules changes - obviously, because I am FOR the rule change in anchoring putting.

NOT ONCE did I say "people with any type of disability should be barred from competing".  My stance on disability is no special allowances should be made for it at the highest level of sports. That isn't even close to "barring" someone from competing.

Thanks for the insult, it is greatly appreciated.

Throughout history golf has had to make "special allowances" for some reason or another because the rules at the time excluded people. If someone is unable to compete under the current rules and there are no "special allowances" then you are definitely barring someone from competing.

[smiley]

Mark Kings remarks have absolutely nothing to do with the ban on belly putter .

His aim is to get rid of the rules so that TMAG can make whatever they like.

Here is his problem profits are down so he needs to find something new to convince you to buy new product. ( After

all TMAG have used just about every possible available avenue to date. E.g white head and black face didn't actully better align

the clubface, you actually need a decal with racer stripes as well).

Not sure what improvement figure highly this time around , however what does figure very highlyevery time is the price .

Now given the fact  that TMAG hit you with a new drive offering  in less than 12 months the numbers start to look like this:

R1 $399 typical

R11s was $399 now new  $250 - $299

Trade in R11s best price $105

So once someone has been round this loop once I dobt they are too keen to go again particularly when  they probably didn't

realise the anticipated gains from the first pass. (Average golfers just don't gain 17 yards they can't generate enough club head speed.

Nor does having a vast adjustment in face angle help them either as generally the people with major slice / hook problems don't have

any sort of consistency about their swing).

If the above the depreciation hit  your auto over 11 months I don't think you would be buying another of that brand.

TMAG have driven themselves and the market  to this point  by their aggressive greedy corporate product strategy. The sad thing is that thousands

of consumers bought into the elaborate claims for improvement ( I'm not saying the next generation isn't better

it 's more really a question of  how much of the claims can be realised by  Mr Average). The net result is that other Manufacturers got on the band wagon

as initially they were seen to be lagging behind and not inivative, Net result new product arriving faster than the established markets

absorbsion rate. So smaller companies fail and resale values for the consumer spiral downwards.

I really worry about the future of golf if it is allowed to be dictated by the likes of Mr King.