Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016) - Page 65

 

Chas, you're right.  The tapestry reveals a lot about the long putter saga.    Here Harold, Earl of Wessex, and his foursome have just checked in with the starter.  Harold is picking which cart to use, but one can see two of the members of his foursome on the right have what are clearly long putters:

 

 

 

And here is Harold and his group celebrating at the 19th hole after Harold made a 50 footer for birdie on 18 to win his Nassau:

 

 

 

 

In this next image, one can clearly  see the Odyssey head shape on the long putter above Harold's head (the guy on the far right).    This scene depicts Harold being slain by a member of the R&A (the guy on horseback) for using a long putter.  Rules making was a bit harsh back then.       BTW, the R&A were simply called the "R" back then since they weren't yet ancient.

 

 

 

So, Chas is correct - there is positive proof that the long putter has been used since before the Norman conquest.   Even then, the R&A, er I mean the R, were unable to stem the tide of long putters on the golf landscape.   Here we are again, 970 years later, and they're still trying.  

Erik:  Guilty as charged.  I will refrain.

 

Clambake: simply brilliant!

Edited by Chas - 3/6/13 at 9:51pm

 

And History repeats itself as the long broomstick 50" inch putter that was attributed to Charlie Owens has roots that started before the Greg Norman conquest. So will the R&A lead the charge and stab the beast in the heart...or belly? It appears so. I guess we should have paid attention to the tapestry and the lessons contained within. 

 

Great post Clambake! 

They'll have thousands of hours to practice [a stroke that offers no disadvantage] before any proposed ban goes into effect.

Yes, but at the expense of something else.  You're a football guy ... how many times do you hear stories of teams instituting a certain play or package one week with the main purpose of forcing their opponents to waste valuable practice time preparing for it next week?

 

I realize that it's very easy for us non-anchorers to have a flippant attitude on the subject.  I know I'm guilty of it.  Then I read the comments from Tim Clark, and I can't help but sympathize (or empathize - I get them mixed up) with him.  It definitely makes me think twice about whether this whole thing is really necessary.

 

At the expense of putting with an anchored stroke.

 

Now, at some point in their careers they made a choice, right?  They chose to putt for a few hours per day with an alternate stroke method before they were even playing with it.  They did it then at the expense of something else, correct?  They can do it again.  3 hours per day of non-anchored putting practice gives them plenty of time to adjust with time to spare.  And let's be honest, they made that choice then knowing full well it could have been banned in the future.

 

And this is not me being flippant.  This is me using their own arguments against them to illustrate a point.  If their defense is "there's no advantage" and "we put a lot of time into this," then even assuming those are valid arguments, there is still a counterpoint.  The ban would not be implemented tomorrow (thus any "harm" is mitigated or in fact negated), and if there is no advantage, then obviously there is no disadvantage, ceteris paribus.  And I do not sympathize with a tour pro that has to practice extra to stay on tour (even though that is a dubious assumption to make in the first place).  If I were to be flippant about anything it would be about putting practice in general, regardless of which method one is practicing.

Good points, however, I'm still not sold. :)

 

I'm not sure it's fair to say that "they made the choice knowing full well it could have been banned in the future" unless you're only talking about guys who have taken it up very recently.  Those like Tim Clark that have been doing it forever, if I recall from this thread correctly, learned way back in 1989 that the governing bodies decided it was OK then.  Otherwise, because we're all agreeing that rules are arbitrary, then you could say that about anybody.  I know full well that they could ban swinging right handed in the future but its the risk I'm willing to take.  And let's be clear, I'm NOT trying to make the silly slippery slope argument, just trying to point out that I don't see a reason why they would have known full well that something deemed 100% legal previously was always at the risk of being deemed illegal.

 

And regarding the advantage/no advantage point, I don't believe those two are mutually exclusive.  I believe that a guy like Tim Clark can make the argument that it's not an unfair advantage for him to putt with an anchored stroke, and at the same time argue that it would be absolutely a disadvantage for him to have to switch.  Take my right-handed example above.  It's not an advantage to be right-handed, but it is CERTAINLY an advantage for me.  And would definitely be a disadvantage to me to have to switch.

 

Oh, and LOL regarding your very last sentence. 

 

Why is that?

?  I explained it in the rest of that paragraph, but I'll try again with slightly different wording.  He can make the argument that it's not an unfair advantage to him, but if the rule goes through, he's going to have to learn something that he doesn't already know how to do.  That will almost certainly take more time than it would take him to continue putting the way he putts now ... thus, that puts him at a disadvantage.

 

Maybe I shouldn't say "absolutely" though.  Who knows?  If he's never putted any other way, maybe he'll come to find that he is a natural and will wish he'd been putting non-anchored this entire time.  But I can't fault the guy for feeling like he shouldn't have to switch, and I can't help but feel bad for him.

Of course he doesn't want to switch - he tried and stuck with anchoring for a reason.

He should take a deep breath, realize he's doing it "to promote the best interests of the great game of golf", and smile. Not many are privileged to make such a sacrifice for a cause they hold so dear.
;)

“We have a great game,” Scott said. “As professionals, we have great tours, and we should be working together on this. I’m shocked that they went ahead and proposed the ban before getting Tim Finchem’s point of view. Why would they want to rock the boat like this? I just don’t think golf is at a point where it needs a shake-up.”

 

 

Even before before the anchor ban came into place I find myself being less and less interested in the PGA Tour.

I used to spend every Saturday and Sunday afternoon watching what ever golf tournament was on the TV.

Now I may watch a couple of hours of a major at the most.

The time between the shots is driving me nuts I would much rather actually play golf than watch golf.

So frankly I don't give a crap what any of the pros think.

The rules are for the 99.99% of golfers in the world and not just for the pros.

 

1. Almost every other Tour has expressed support of the proposal. The PGA Tour is the odd man out here, Adam.
2. They had a comment period. For ****'s sake, Adam - they proposed the rule for 2016 - how else would you have them propose the rule? Don't you think it would have leaked? Plus, again, the world consists of WAY THE HELL MORE than the PGA Tour.

 

Has anyone told the PGA Tour this? Anyone, Anyone, Bueller? 

And the PGA of America has come out against the (proposed) ban too.

 

I would also argue that the PGA Tour is more important than any of the others and has done more to grow the game (even if it was the Tiger factor)

 

The Tour is only really interested in its own welfare.  I don't know anyone who got started in golf because of the PGA Tour.  They get started because of family or friends who introduce them to the game.  Most people only become interested in golf on TV (and the Tour) after they have become regular players.  The Tour has an inflated idea of its own importance.

 

Yep, they are a money making enterprise whose job is to look out for it's players, sponsors, and stakeholder's best interests. Even though I see the logic of their arguments, it just seems slightly disingenuous when they talk about how the ban may hurt ams.

 

Quote:

 

I think you are underestimating the appeal of Arnold and Tiger and what they did to help popularize golf in their respective eras. 

 

Add Arnold to that list...he is an incredible ambassador.