Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016) - Page 67

Quote:

Originally Posted by bplewis24 

The DH is a part of baseball culture now.  ...  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.

As much as many of us wish it wasn't, the anchored stroke is part of golf culture right now, is it not?  And short of the Hall of Fame part, couldn't the exact same argument be made for guys like Tim Clark, Carl Petterson, Scott McCarron, and half the guys on the senior tour?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bplewis24 

So if they get rid of the DH now, they would be admitting they were wrong to create it in the first place.

But is there much difference here than the USGA having looked at anchored putting, and deemed it legal, 23 years ago?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas 

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).

If cricket were a popular American sport, there would be merchandising, equipment, advertising and marketing dollars in play in the millions or billions of dollars.  The sport's commission/league/committee would have sponsorships and TV contracts that would bring in tons of revenue and influence their decision making process on how to grow the game and keep it mainstream and enjoyable.  That is what drives things over here.  

Whether it's the NFL instituting rules and safety measures to promote better offensive display or the NBA not enforcing some of it's standard rules (traveling, carrying) in order to promote star-power and scoring, you can see the influence of the $$$ on the rules committees themselves.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by meenman 

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.

This isn't necessarily directed at you or this particular comment, but rather a general notion that anything that makes the game harder makes it more difficult to grow the sport or keep up mainstream appeal.  Can we all agree that the grooves ruling was intended to make the sport more difficult?  Is that the concensus?  The rulesmakers wanted there to be more of a penalty for driving it in the rough.  They wanted the game to be difficult.  By extension, this should also hurt the growth of the game, right?  Do you guys have a problem with that rule on the same grounds?  Shouldn't we be making the game easier so that everybody will want to play?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad 

As much as many of us wish it wasn't, the anchored stroke is part of golf culture right now, is it not?  And short of the Hall of Fame part, couldn't the exact same argument be made for guys like Tim Clark, Carl Petterson, Scott McCarron, and half the guys on the senior tour?

Senior tour notwithstanding, I would argue emphatically that it is NOT an entrenched part of golfing culture.  It is still a relatively new development when you consider the number of amateurs that even use the stroke.  It's just now become relevant enough for the USGA  and R&A to decide to do something about it...which is of course their own mistake as they should have done something a long time ago as far as I'm concerned.  

And while I firmly believe that anecdotal evidence should have no bearing on the matter (or very little), I do NOT believe that Tim Clark, et al, would be playing a different sport or forced out of the sport if they couldn't anchor.  There are many reasons why.  They could argue that, sure, but I think it would be an incredibly tough case to make when other guys have switched putting strokes--and in some cases switch every other year--and didn't become irrelevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bplewis24 

  

 

 

This isn't necessarily directed at you, but rather a general notion that anything that makes the game harder makes it more difficult to grow the sport or keep up mainstream appeal.  Can we all agree that the grooves ruling was intended to make the sport more difficult?  Is that the concensus?  The rulesmakers wanted there to be more of a penalty for driving it in the rough.  They wanted the game to be difficult.  By extension, this should also hurt the growth of the game, right?  Do you guys have a problem with that rule on the same grounds?  Shouldn't we be making the game easier so that everybody will want to play?

I dont think it makes the game easier - maybe for those of us that use them. But everyone, no matter what side they are on has said that it does not provide an advantage.

It helps those of us that use them, but many have tried and given up. (Once again, they help us because of increased practice time)

I just think the *tradition* argument is weak and those that compare anchoring to gps balls and machines that hit for us are the ones out of line. This is not an equipment issue (although it may as well be for those with belly putters), this is supposed to be a *definition of stroke* issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad 

Quote:

Originally Posted by bplewis24 

The DH is a part of baseball culture now.  ...  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.

As much as many of us wish it wasn't, the anchored stroke is part of golf culture right now, is it not?  And short of the Hall of Fame part, couldn't the exact same argument be made for guys like Tim Clark, Carl Petterson, Scott McCarron, and half the guys on the senior tour?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by bplewis24 

So if they get rid of the DH now, they would be admitting they were wrong to create it in the first place.

But is there much difference here than the USGA having looked at anchored putting, and deemed it legal, 23 years ago?

No, it isn't.  Hasn't been really visible for more than a couple of years, and that's not enough to make it part of the culture.  The governing bodies are proposing the ban to block that from happening.  Unlike the DH (which I also dislike), which required action on the part of the American League to institute it, anchored putting just appeared because there was nothing in the rules to prevent it.  

They didn't really look at it or deem it legal, there just wasn't enough to it to bother with at the time.  

Clearly it has now become a potential threat to the traditional way of playing the game, and as such, it has now raised more concern.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by meenman 

Those *purists* are against the DH, possibly something that saved MLB from becoming the NHL.

Uhm, no. Not possibly something that saved MLB. If that was the case the NL would have it too, because they'd have lost fans and interest in people watching NL games.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas 

 

Uhm, no. Not possibly something that saved MLB. If that was the case the NL would have it too, because they'd have lost fans and interest in people watching NL games.

The AL east is what drives TV ratings so it has helped baseball.

It will all be irrelevant soon - with inter-league play every day, the NL will be forced to adapt (the players association will win over the *purists*)

Quote:

Originally Posted by meenman 

The AL east is what drives TV ratings so it has helped baseball.

 

It will all be irrelevant soon - with inter-league play every day, the NL will be forced to adapt (the players association will win over the *purists*)

Regardless of your opinions on the DH, its relationship to golf and this particular rules change is super weak at best.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bplewis24 

Senior tour notwithstanding, I would argue emphatically that it is NOT an entrenched part of golfing culture.  It is still a relatively new development when you consider the number of amateurs that even use the stroke.  It's just now become relevant enough for the USGA  and R&A to decide to do something about it...which is of course their own mistake as they should have done something a long time ago as far as I'm concerned.

I would tend to agree with you about the "entrenched" part on the grounds of quantity of users, but it would be hard to look at it from the point of view of the aforementioned long term users (Clark, Petersen, etc.) and call it a "new" development.  Pick any item that you use regularly at your job that you've been relying on since day 1 and try to picture your boss coming and telling you "you can't use it anymore ... good luck."  From their perspective, this just plain sucks, and I feel bad for them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bplewis24 

And while I firmly believe that anecdotal evidence should have no bearing on the matter (or very little), I do NOT believe that Tim Clark, et al, would be playing a different sport or forced out of the sport if they couldn't anchor.  There are many reasons why.  They could argue that, sure, but I think it would be an incredibly tough case to make when other guys have switched putting strokes--and in some cases switch every other year--and didn't become irrelevant.

This is a very fair point.  It's easy for me to get my kicks here with this debate using the same 3 guys that have been anchor-putting for 20 (or whatever) years.  I could even make a case that they might be forced out of golf if they couldn't anchor.  But in the grand scheme of things, we're talking about, what, less than a handful of people?  I would bet that the majority of anchor putters whose livelihood depends on golf would certainly fall into the "tinkerer" category you mention.  And you're right ... they would have an awfully tough case to make considering that those types of guys (Mickelson, Els) are changing putting styles all the time ... heck, sometimes week to week!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt 

No, it isn't.  Hasn't been really visible for more than a couple of years, and that's not enough to make it part of the culture.  The governing bodies are proposing the ban to block that from happening.  Unlike the DH (which I also dislike), which required action on the part of the American League to institute it, anchored putting just appeared because there was nothing in the rules to prevent it.  

 

They didn't really look at it or deem it legal, there just wasn't enough to it to bother with at the time.   

I already made this argument several pages ago talking about prescriptive easements and adverse possession.  Basically, the argument was that knowing about it and choosing not to do anything at all to prevent it is exactly the same as saying it's legal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas 

 

Uhm, no. Not possibly something that saved MLB. If that was the case the NL would have it too, because they'd have lost fans and interest in people watching NL games.

Exactly!

The REASONS behind the DH and anchored putting are so totally different that no comparison of the two can work, in my opinion.

In 1972 prior to the DH being introduced, attendance at AL parks averaged 12,305 per game.  The NL was a full 36% higher at 16,745 per game.  The AL had to do something because they were losing so much money at the box office.  40 years later, in 2012, AL parks averaged 29,439 per game.  The NL still tops that, but now only by 8.7% at 32,003.

The DH rule may have saved some of the AL teams like the Brewers who were drawing barely 7,600 per game, but it didn't save baseball overall.  It increased attendance overall in the AL and increased their receipts, allowing them to better compete in what was becoming more of a business and less of a sport.  Frankly, in my opinion, they could have done the same had they worked on pitchers in the batting cages a little more throughout history, but they were losing so much money they had to act drastically, hence the infamous DH.  (yeah, HENCE!)

Anchored putting has nothing to do with the DH.  It was NOT introduced by anyone to improve attendance or even to increase viewership.  And getting rid of it isn't going to impact the PGA Tour's receipts one iota, at least not in any way I can imagine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave67az 

Exactly!

 

The REASONS behind the DH and anchored putting are so totally different that no comparison of the two can work, in my opinion.

 

In 1972 prior to the DH being introduced, attendance at AL parks averaged 12,305 per game.  The NL was a full 36% higher at 16,745 per game.  The AL had to do something because they were losing so much money at the box office.  40 years later, in 2012, AL parks averaged 29,439 per game.  The NL still tops that, but now only by 8.7% at 32,003.

 

The DH rule may have saved some of the AL teams like the Brewers who were drawing barely 7,600 per game, but it didn't save baseball overall.  It increased attendance overall in the AL and increased their receipts, allowing them to better compete in what was becoming more of a business and less of a sport.  Frankly, in my opinion, they could have done the same had they worked on pitchers in the batting cages a little more throughout history, but they were losing so much money they had to act drastically, hence the infamous DH.  (yeah, HENCE!)

 

Anchored putting has nothing to do with the DH.  It was NOT introduced by anyone to improve attendance or even to increase viewership.  And getting rid of it isn't going to impact the PGA Tour's receipts one iota, at least not in any way I can imagine.

Since I was the one that originally brought it up  I guess I should say something here.  I just want to make clear that I wasn't suggesting that the rules were similar, or that the reasons for baseball implementing the DH were similar to the reasons why golf has (or should have) anchored putting.  I was simply making a comparison between the banning of the anchored putter and the hypothetical elimination of the DH rule.  Specifically, what it will do to those professionals whose livelihood depends on an anchored stroke, or depend on hitting home runs while not being able to field a ball. :)  My arguments of yesterday and today all stem from just generally feeling bad for guys like Tim Clark.  (And I don't even know the guy ... he could be a jerk for all I know) :)

You cannot be serious? While we remain on the same side of the anchoring debate (I think?) Your arguments are getting weaker by the minute.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bplewis24 

This isn't necessarily directed at you or this particular comment, but rather a general notion that anything that makes the game harder makes it more difficult to grow the sport or keep up mainstream appeal.  Can we all agree that the grooves ruling was intended to make the sport more difficult?  Is that the concensus?  The rulesmakers wanted there to be more of a penalty for driving it in the rough.  They wanted the game to be difficult.  By extension, this should also hurt the growth of the game, right?  Do you guys have a problem with that rule on the same grounds?  Shouldn't we be making the game easier so that everybody will want to play?

It sure hasn't worked out too well for tennis.  It wasn't that long ago that TV ratings for tennis were much higher than those for golf.  But tennis wanted the game to be easier and promoted larger racket sizes.  As a result the pro game changed completely as the balance between serve/volley and ground-strokes was tilted towards the latter.  And it turned out that watching 2 people slug the ball back and forth wasn't nearly as entertaining as watching an all-court game where thee were a wider variety of shot types.  So now tennis ratings are in the toilet in comparison to golf.  Recreational play is way down as well. 

It is a cautionary tale for golf. 

The real telling numbers for me were those in the R&As FAQ about the rule change. 

I wonder if the use of data as a count noun as opposed to a mass noun does their reputation much good. I suspect it grates on more people than the alternative.

What are the data showing substantially increased use of anchored strokes in the last two years?

The empirical data that we have seen relate primarily to usage of longer putters on the professional tours. Those data show a ...........

What is the data showing substantially increased use of anchored strokes in the last two years?

The empirical data that we have seen relates primarily to usage of longer putters on the professional tours. This data shows a ...........

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman 

I wonder if the use of data as a count noun as opposed to a mass noun does their reputation much good. I suspect it grates on more people than the alternative.

 

 

What are the data showing substantially increased use of anchored strokes in the last two years?

 

The empirical data that we have seen relate primarily to usage of longer putters on the professional tours. Those data show a ...........

 

What is the data showing substantially increased use of anchored strokes in the last two years?

 

The empirical data that we have seen relates primarily to usage of longer putters on the professional tours. This data shows a ...........

The singular/plural forms of Latin words seem to get quite confused, if not lost completely, when used on the internet.  Datum - data, forum - fora, criterium - criteria, etc.

Add the anchored putter.......bring back the wooden driver head, buldge, roll and all. That would answer a lot of issues with the ball and

redesign (lengthing courses).