Originally Posted by dsc123
This is the same thing that meenman complained of. That quote was not representative of the post, but an extreme example followed by "this may seem ridiculous." The point real point is that it wouldn't be simple to craft a rule allowing for grandfathering, and more importantly, you'd have players competing against each other using a different set of rules. That will never happen.
Originally Posted by dave67az
I don't think it's that they don't understand. I think many are ticked off at the whole anchoring ban and they're letting their emotions speak instead of logic.
To be fair, let's look at exactly what he said if you're going to accuse me of purposely misrepresenting him:
"Are they later allowed to try a shorter putter? If they do, do they lose their right to anchor? What if they tap it in without anchoring? May seem ridiculous but if they're going to make a rule they'd have to think about this. It would be completely unworkable."
While I give you credit for trying to defend what I'm guessing you characterized as sarcasm, I'd love to hear an explanation for what you thought he meant by that last sentence. Seems to me "completely unworkable" is pretty absolute, isn't it? We're not saying they would have difficulty with it, or that it would take a lot of thought. We're saying it's won't work...ever.
Don't get ticked at me because I thought someone meant what they said. If by "completely unworkable" he meant that it would require effort, then I apologize to him for misunderstanding his point.
However, I stand by my point that by bringing up questions like "are they allowed to use a short putter and switch back" because it demonstrates a lack of knowledge about grandfathering relative to a prohibitive clause. To simplify again, if one is grandfathered then they can do exactly what they did before the clause goes into effect.
You also said "I think I am part of the "they" and the "many" you refer to here, since your prior post quoted mine. I think anchoring should banned, I am not ticked off, I just disagree that grandfathering is a good idea."
I looked and didn't find your name on any of the posts that I was referring to. One post said that it was "absolutely unmanageable" because you couldn't track who was grandfathered and who wasn't. One said it was "simply not enforceable" and actually asked if you would lose your grandfather status if you switched back to non-anchoring for a short time. So no, I don't think I was referring to anything you said. If, however, you made any comments that said it was "impossible" (or the equivalent) to manage a grandfather clause in a rule in sports, yes, I'll throw you into that category as well. If you, as I, believe that IF THEY DID IT it simply requires a little work in deciding who gets grandfathered, and for how long they are grandfathered, then we're on the same page. But to make it sound like it's impossible is a slight exaggeration at best, don't you think?
You also didn't like my seat belt analogy: "That's a terrible analogy. One deals with the actions of people in the future, the other deals with products that have been made in the past. For example, even though every car I've ever owned had a seat belt, I am allowed to drive a old car that was grandfathered in. The law doesn't distinguish between who can drive those cars. "
I stand by it. Once cars are built a certain way (without seat belts for example) it's difficult to re-fit them (not to mention the decrease in value if you modify a classic car). Once a golf swing is built, it's also difficult to re-learn a new swing (whether it's the full swing, or a putting style). I look at a golf swing as something that is "built", and one of the arguments for NOT banning anchored putters is that it would require substantial effort to change it. Regardless, my point was that it's just as easy to track and manage a program in which some cars are required to have no seat belts as it is to manage a program in which some players are allowed to use anchored putting.
And to answer your final question, if a grandfather clause was adopted, the time period would obviously begin when the rule goes into effect and not before. Whether it's 5 years, 10 years, or whatever, it would begin when the rule goes into effect and should be based (in my opinion) on the turnover rate of the Tour (exempt players turnover rate, for instance).
Again, I'm not advocating grandfathering. I'm simply trying to dispel claims that it's "impossible" and "can't be done". That kind of defeatist attitude gets one nowhere.