or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Rules of Golf › Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016) - Page 66

post #1171 of 1852

The areas of the world where golf is growing fastest (Europe, Middle East & Asia) are outside the PGA Tour and PGA of America home territory.

post #1172 of 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

.  Most people only become interested in golf on TV (and the Tour) after they have become regular players.  

 

 

I think people become more interested in Golf on TV once they start playing, but I do believe people seeing golf on TV is what introduces many to the game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rulesman View Post

The areas of the world where golf is growing fastest (Europe, Middle East & Asia) are outside the PGA Tour and PGA of America home territory.

I think we can all pull numbers out of our butts to support our claims.....

 

If Mongolia used to have one golfer and now has three, that is a large *percentage* increase.

post #1173 of 1852

Organizations overall are only really interested in their own welfare.   The USGA didn't initiate the ban, but it was in their best interest that they go along with the R&A who was passionate about the getting the anchored stroke out of golf.  Let's not pretend the USGA is completely altruistic and doesn't have any of their own interests at heart when they make decisions. 

 

As for why people got involved with golf, it's probably a split between family/friends and PGA Tour, but the popularity golf enjoys today overall is due to Arnold, Jack and Tiger. 

 

Some might say the USGA has an inflated idea of their importance as well, the people that play the game own it, not the rules makers.  Seems to be a common problem with ruling bodies and governments these days, they no longer look for consensus or allow for voting on important issues, they prefer to just dictate what they believe is best for everyone and we have to live with it. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

 

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.

post #1174 of 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rulesman View Post

The areas of the world where golf is growing fastest (Europe, Middle East & Asia) are outside the PGA Tour and PGA of America home territory.

That means nothing, Asia is obsessed with American culture.  If you did a poll in the Middle East and Asia I'd bet Tiger still ranks in the Top 2 of their favorite golfers, and he plays for the PGA Tour. 

post #1175 of 1852

Tiger is not the tour. Asia is taken up with the stars not the asteroid dust and vacuum surrounding them.

post #1176 of 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by TourSpoon View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

 

The Tour is only really interested in its own welfare. 

 

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:

Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

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.

 

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

 

Individually I would agree with you, but Tiger and Arnie are relative oddities.  Unto itself, the Tour as an entity is quite uninspiring to a novice player.  There is almost too much parity now.  Nobody stands out enough, either for talent or personality, to really make a splash on any news front outside of golf specific outlets. 

post #1177 of 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by TourSpoon View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

 

The Tour is only really interested in its own welfare. 

 

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:

Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

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.

 

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

Individually I would agree with you, but Tiger and Arnie are relative oddities.  Unto itself, the Tour as an entity is quite uninspiring to a novice player.  There is almost too much parity now.  Nobody stands out enough, either for talent or personality, to really make a splash on any news front outside of golf specific outlets. 

 

I will go with that. That is why I can be part of a gallery of 15 people at the Honda Classic and follow around Darren Clark, Paddy, and Poulter (last year). No slouches to us in the golf world with a few majors there, but relatively obscure and unimportant to the masses especially when Tiger is on the course.  

post #1178 of 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

?  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.

 

I thought you may have been implying he has some physical reason why it would be a disadvantage for him.  But it does illustrate why using the "advantage" barometer is not the best measure for a rule change.  One guy could always make the case that a rule change disproportionately affects him more than others.  Rule changes should be about preserving the original skill of the game as some governing body sees it based on as much relevant info as possible.

 

Anyhow, the more I think about it, the more flippant I'm likely to become.  They want us to buy into their argument based on a belief that if somebody has done something one way for a long time, if they change now it would do great harm that that is a harm that they would never risk.  The reality, though, is that the vast majority of these guys risk that harm every single off-season as they change clubs, swings, techniques, coaches, etc.  And yes, for some golfers it does harm, but that is something they do voluntarily and they spend probably several hundred hours over the course of an off-season to work on that change. 

 

Again, just can't find myself feeling bad for somebody unless they had a physical limitation.  It wouldn't change anything for me, but I'd feel bad for them.

post #1179 of 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by bplewis24 View Post

I thought you may have been implying he has some physical reason why it would be a disadvantage for him.  But it does illustrate why using the "advantage" barometer is not the best measure for a rule change.  One guy could always make the case that a rule change disproportionately affects him more than others.  Rule changes should be about preserving the original skill of the game as some governing body sees it based on as much relevant info as possible.

 

Anyhow, the more I think about it, the more flippant I'm likely to become.  They want us to buy into their argument based on a belief that if somebody has done something one way for a long time, if they change now it would do great harm that that is a harm that they would never risk.  The reality, though, is that the vast majority of these guys risk that harm every single off-season as they change clubs, swings, techniques, coaches, etc.  And yes, for some golfers it does harm, but that is something they do voluntarily and they spend probably several hundred hours over the course of an off-season to work on that change. 

 

Again, just can't find myself feeling bad for somebody unless they had a physical limitation.  It wouldn't change anything for me, but I'd feel bad for them.

Fair enough.

 

I would liken it to (I may already have 9,000 pages ago, who knows by now? ;)) getting rid of the DH in baseball.  It's a rule change that has been "fairly" controversial (that's definitely too strong a word - but most everybody feels strongly one way or the other on this rule) ever since it was implemented.  Let's say, for example, that when they decide to consolidate the rules of the leagues sometime in the future they go the route of getting rid of the DH in the AL.  (In reality, I suspect they'd go the other way, but that wouldn't really work for my example ;))  There are a lot of productive hitters that will be forced out of the game - over the years guys like Edgar Martinez, David Ortiz, Vladimir Guerrero, come to mind, among others - unless they learn how to field.  I could easily make the argument that not having a DH is how the game was meant to be played, but that's not going to stop me from feeling bad for those guys getting put out of work overnight.

post #1180 of 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

Fair enough.

 

I would liken it to (I may already have 9,000 pages ago, who knows by now? ;)) getting rid of the DH in baseball.  It's a rule change that has been "fairly" controversial (that's definitely too strong a word - but most everybody feels strongly one way or the other on this rule) ever since it was implemented.  Let's say, for example, that when they decide to consolidate the rules of the leagues sometime in the future they go the route of getting rid of the DH in the AL.  (In reality, I suspect they'd go the other way, but that wouldn't really work for my example ;))  There are a lot of productive hitters that will be forced out of the game - over the years guys like Edgar Martinez, David Ortiz, Vladimir Guerrero, come to mind, among others - unless they learn how to field.  I could easily make the argument that not having a DH is how the game was meant to be played, but that's not going to stop me from feeling bad for those guys getting put out of work overnight.

possibly the best analogy yet and had baseball not gone with the DH, it would be in trouble - kind of like the direction the *rules makers* may be taking golf.

post #1181 of 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

Fair enough.

 

I would liken it to (I may already have 9,000 pages ago, who knows by now? ;)) getting rid of the DH in baseball.  It's a rule change that has been "fairly" controversial (that's definitely too strong a word - but most everybody feels strongly one way or the other on this rule) ever since it was implemented.  Let's say, for example, that when they decide to consolidate the rules of the leagues sometime in the future they go the route of getting rid of the DH in the AL.  (In reality, I suspect they'd go the other way, but that wouldn't really work for my example ;))  There are a lot of productive hitters that will be forced out of the game - over the years guys like Edgar Martinez, David Ortiz, Vladimir Guerrero, come to mind, among others - unless they learn how to field.  I could easily make the argument that not having a DH is how the game was meant to be played, but that's not going to stop me from feeling bad for those guys getting put out of work overnight.

 

I'd probably feel bad for those guys too, even though I am strongly against the DH.  That's probably no coincidence, right?  

 

The DH is a part of baseball culture now.  The games and strategies have changed so much as a result of it, and some managers/players are dependent on it.  That kind of change would have a huge impact.  Another thing about the DH rule is that it has created or extended careers of people who likely may have otherwise had very limited or shortened careers.  In some cases it's even given guys a chance at the hall of fame.

 

It seems like in some of these matters it becomes a question of, "what is the player entitled to, and when is it irreversible?"  In the case of a DH rule, I would argue that the harm would be much greater and more tangible, as some DHs can barely move near the end of their careers, whereas sometimes the difference between the anchored and non-anchored stroke can be subtle from a physical standpoint.  

 

I don't believe any athlete in any competition is necessarily entitled to anything (although I'm sure some examples can be made to make me contradict myself).  When proposing rule changes, I don't believe that should be a primary concern.  In some cases, there are going to be casualties.  In the DH example, things are slightly different because MLB created their own problem...they proactively created a position that now some people want to see eliminated.  It wasn't something that organically spawned within the rules which caused the rules committee to specify whether it was legal or not.  So if they get rid of the DH now, they would be admitting they were wrong to create it in the first place.

post #1182 of 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by meenman View Post

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 PGA said 63% of the really small number of members who responded disagreed. Wake me when the PGA is relevant. They're becoming increasingly less so - despite the fact that I just paid $2k to them for some stupid classes.

 

And while the PGA Tour may be more important than "any" of the others, it's not more important than the entire rest of the world combined. Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus support the proposed ban, and they've done a fair amount for golf, eh?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by meenman View Post

I do believe people seeing golf on TV is what introduces many to the game.

 

I don't think nearly as many start playing because they see it on TV as you seem to think.

post #1183 of 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by meenman View Post

possibly the best analogy yet and had baseball not gone with the DH, it would be in trouble - kind of like the direction the *rules makers* may be taking golf.

 

So you're saying that anchored putting should be allowed because it draws more fans and improves scoring on the PGA Tour?  Yeah, I'm not buying it.  The introduction of the DH had a purpose, and that was to improve the team's batting for the enjoyment of the fans because fans got tired of watching pitchers fall all over themselves trying to hit a ball.

post #1184 of 1852
Tx for the baseball history lesson, I know more about cricket. As inarguably the most boring sport ever invented for the inexperienced TV viewer, it's a wonder the rules haven't changed that much in the modern era (except for the 'limited over' version, I grant you).

But no meenman, your argument is hopelessly weak. I'd stick with some of the other ones.
post #1185 of 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave67az View Post

 

So you're saying that anchored putting should be allowed because it draws more fans and improves scoring on the PGA Tour?  Yeah, I'm not buying it.  The introduction of the DH had a purpose, and that was to improve the team's batting for the enjoyment of the fans because fans got tired of watching pitchers fall all over themselves trying to hit a ball.

My argument is what it always has been - traditionalists can stifle any growth. Those *purists* are against the DH, possibly something that saved MLB from becoming the NHL.

 

I believe the traditionalists are stifling part of golf's growth going against the anchored putting. It's all because they do not like the look of a stroke. Some people like to be *different* out there, and should be left to be.

post #1186 of 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by meenman View Post

Some people like to be *different* out there, and should be left to be.

 

But isn't that what Loudmouth Golf apparel is for? Sorry couldn't help it. 

 

post #1187 of 1852
Fair enough. But to many, hitting a golf ball with a club that's other than freely held in the hands is a different game. Maybe give it another name and create another Tour :>)
post #1188 of 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by TourSpoon View Post

 

But isn't that what Loudmouth Golf apparel is for? Sorry couldn't help it. 

 

I must really be high up on the *annoying golfer* list - anchoring, Loudmouth pants, hats, glasses, a beer and cigar at all times.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rules of Golf
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Rules of Golf › Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)