Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016) - Page 54

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave67az 

As I said, I doubt they would do it, but I also don't think their reason has anything to do with logistics.  It's not freakin' rocket science people.  There are lots of laws on the books with grandfather clauses (tons in the public safety arena) so it's not like there's any need to re-invent the wheel.  I looked at a bunch of the questions you guys were bringing up and I had to laugh.  "What if a guy who is grandfathered accidentally taps in without anchoring?"  Seriously?

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.

Quote:

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.

 

 

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. 

 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave67az 

 

You and I both are on the same page in that neither of us is a proponent of grandfathering, but it's not difficult to come up with a plan on how to accomplish it.  I just have a problem with people who come up with stupid reasons why it can't be done as though they've never seen a classic car without seat belts, or a building with asbestos-laden tile in it.

 

 

 

 

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.  

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave67az 

Could they grandfather just the pros on the Tour?  Yeah.  They could easily draft an agreement with the Tour to delay the ban for 5 years for current anchoring players on the Tour.  To say that the Tour wouldn't be able to keep track of its players is asinine, and makes it sound like I can just walk onto a PGA Tourney and play without them realizing I wasn't on the Tour.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TourSpoon 

Exactly. It would be as easy as the guys who were allowed to go helmet-less in the NHL. If a guy has his card by date certain, then they are grandfathered to putt either way. Anyone getting a card after that date, including those that lost their card and regained, would be limited to the traditional putting stroke. 

The NHL is a better analogy.  But its sill protective gear, as opposed to equipment.  You're never going to get good data on whether anchoring is easier, and you'll have people on both sides of that debate.  So if you grandfather, you end up with people playing against each other under different rules and some thinking that the rules are to their competitive disadvantage.  The current debate is nothing compared to what that would be.

If you do grandfather, going by when you got your card make MUCH more sense than going by how often you've used it in the past.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt 

 

I guess this comes down to what you call a "formal competition".  Virtually every player I've ever known who carried an official handicap did so for the purpose of competition.  In my opinion, the tournaments run by the Men's club at your local course are still formal competitions if they are played by the Rules of Golf.  I was in a public course men's club with 250 members for 22 years, and believe me, our tournaments were formal.  Our rules committee published a hard card with approved local rules and conditions of the competition.  We had an active and involved handicap committee.  The mens club was managed by an elected board of directors.  We were organized under the guidelines provided by the USGA and the Colorado Golf Association, but we ran our own competitions without outside involvement.  Were we playing formal competitions?  

Sorry, that's not how I meant it.  Absolutely, your competitions are formal.  What I'm saying (and perhaps I'm wrong) is that most people don't play in those.  Most people just play for fun/recreation or "informal" money games with their friends.

Quote:

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.

 

 

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123 

 

The NHL is a better analogy.  But its sill protective gear, as opposed to equipment.  You're never going to get good data on whether anchoring is easier, and you'll have people on both sides of that debate.  So if you grandfather, you end up with people playing against each other under different rules and some thinking that the rules are to their competitive disadvantage.  The current debate is nothing compared to what that would be.

 

If you do grandfather, going by when you got your card make MUCH more sense than going by how often you've used it in the past.

I agree, the NHL is a better, more direct analogy.  As for the players playing against each other under different rules, it's almost like if they let one guy ride in a golf cart while everyone else had to walk.

You're exactly right, they WOULD complain.  And the fans would complain.  And this is exactly why I oppose grandfathering.  Again, if I were an anchorer and I was grandfathered in, I still wouldn't do it.  Anchoring may help with nerves/yips, but any benefit would be soon lost because of the added mental stress of knowing my fellow pros and many fans thought I was cheating or getting an unfair advantage.

As for doing it by when they get their card, are you talking about anyone who has ever had a card, or only those whose card is current (or have an exemption)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave67az 

 

I agree, the NHL is a better, more direct analogy.  As for the players playing against each other under different rules, it's almost like if they let one guy ride in a golf cart while everyone else had to walk.

 

You're exactly right, they WOULD complain.  And the fans would complain.  And this is exactly why I oppose grandfathering.  Again, if I were an anchorer and I was grandfathered in, I still wouldn't do it.  Anchoring may help with nerves/yips, but any benefit would be soon lost because of the added mental stress of knowing my fellow pros and many fans thought I was cheating or getting an unfair advantage.

 

As for doing it by when they get their card, are you talking about anyone who has ever had a card, or only those whose card is current (or have an exemption)?

Current...if you lost your card and came back you start the year you return. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by meenman 

I just hope if the (proposed) ban is enacted, that the USGA educates the general public. Keegan should never be called a *cheater* since the club and anchoring will be legal for years.

Even if the (proposed) ban went through, myself and most of the 20+ golfers at my club with broomstick putters, would continue to use them in a perfectly legal way.

It is a stroke we have become accustomed to and it would be a matter of moving the club a quarter inch away from our chests.

That being said, I wont believe that the (proposed) ban is going through until it is actually enacted on 1/1/2016.

Sadly I don't see the general public LETTING themselves be educated.  They'll be the same jerkish fans as we have in any sport.  You'll still have idiots screaming out stuff to golfers they don't like.  I'm a huge NASCAR fan, but I really wish golf didn't go down that same road of "fan loyalty" to the extent that NASCAR has.  At some point you would HOPE that fans would appreciate a golfer's skill and performance for what it is and forget whether you "like" him or not.

I'm curious about the broomstick putters...has anyone actually said recently whether they know for a fact that broomsticks won't be affected by the ban?  I mean, if we're talking about a freely swinging club being required for a legal golf swing, the butt end of the club is just as anchored (held in a solid, immovable location) in a broomstick fashion as it is with a belly putter isn't it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave67az 

 

Sadly I don't see the general public LETTING themselves be educated.  They'll be the same jerkish fans as we have in any sport.  You'll still have idiots screaming out stuff to golfers they don't like.  I'm a huge NASCAR fan, but I really wish golf didn't go down that same road of "fan loyalty" to the extent that NASCAR has.  At some point you would HOPE that fans would appreciate a golfer's skill and performance for what it is and forget whether you "like" him or not.

 

I'm curious about the broomstick putters...has anyone actually said recently whether they know for a fact that broomsticks won't be affected by the ban?  I mean, if we're talking about a freely swinging club being required for a legal golf swing, the butt end of the club is just as anchored (held in a solid, immovable location) in a broomstick fashion as it is with a belly putter isn't it?

Meenman is saying that he and his friends will just move it away from their chests.  It wouldn't be anchored anymore, therefore, would be totally legal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave67az 

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.

 

 

that's me, not him.    And I'm not ticked, we're having a debate, right?    But yes, the last part was my point. Not because of the tapping it in quote, but the rest of the post, part of which you quoted here, but I still think the stronger points were omitted.  But there's not really any point in rehashing, because I think TourSpoon offered a workable solution to drafting the rule.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave67az 

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've quoted me two or three times, you just don't know it.   http://thesandtrap.com/t/62766/anchored-putters-rules-change/918#post_814244

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave67az 

 

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.

 

 

 

Right.  I don't.  They are substantively different; one allows one person to do what another person is not allowed to do while the other says its illegal to not wear a seatbelt unless you're car was made before seatbelts were required.  Anybody can drive an old car.  Also, the contextually different; whether the person in the car next to you has a seatbelt on doesn't affect you.  Whether the person you're competing against for millions of dollars is playing under the same rules does affect you.

 

 

 

The tracking issue was someone else, and i'm not going to pick that one up.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave67az 

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).

You were suggesting that the grandfather clause could expire after a certain number of years.  I think that makes even less sense.  Then you're just saying these guys should have more time to convert, as opposed to not requiring them to convert.  If that's the case, it makes more sense to just delay implementation of the rule.  And my understanding was that the proposal wouldn't take effect until 2016 anyway.  In which case, the ban and the grandfather are essentially the same, except maybe that the grandfather gives them a little bit more time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave67az 

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.

 

I'll give you that a rule can be drafted as TourSpoon suggested.  But I still think there is no chance of it working because you'll have players competing against each other under different rules.   

Quote:

Originally Posted by meenman 

Even if the (proposed) ban went through, myself and most of the 20+ golfers at my club with broomstick putters, would continue to use them in a perfectly legal way.

Really?  You'd prefer that over normal putting?  Do you think it would be a big difference from anchoring?  I imagine it would be really weird to mimic that without using your body.  I'm curious because I've never used the anchoring and never thought of this as a possibility.  

Originally Posted by Golfingdad 

Meenman is saying that he and his friends will just move it away from their chests.  It wouldn't be anchored anymore, therefore, would be totally legal.

So they (the USGA and R&A) aren't saying that the entire club needs to be "free-swinging" in order to constitute a legal stroke?  If this is true, then I kind of have a problem with it because whether it's anchored to your chest or held in a hand which is anchored to a chest, I don't see much of a difference.

It seems to me in either case, the butt end of the club is anchored in a nearly-immovable position and thus the club is not swinging freely.

What am I missing?

Meenman, can you explain a little better how you plan to modify your swing?

Here's the last revision that I saw of the proposed change, and the way I read it it seems the any anchoring (club against body, hand against body, forearm against body) is prohibited.

Proposed Changes to Rule 14-1
The proposed change would relabel current Rule 14-1 as Rule 14-1a, and establish Rule 14-1b as described below:
14-1b Anchoring the Club
In making a stroke, the player must not anchor the club, either “directly” or by use of an “anchor point.” 

Note 1:  The club is anchored “directly” when the player intentionally holds the club or a gripping hand in contact with any part of his body, except that the player may hold the club or a gripping hand against a hand or forearm.

Note 2:  An “anchor point” exists when the player intentionally holds a forearm in contact with any part of his body to establish a gripping hand as a stable point around which the other hand may swing the club.

I'm not having a good day.  lol

So you can still put your left hand on top, away from your body, and hold it steady as you swing the head with the other hand.

I have the belly model which I lightly anchor. I experimented today with it not anchored. Not a huge difference and something that I could easily get used too. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123 

So you can still put your left hand on top, away from your body, and hold it steady as you swing the head with the other hand.

That's the way I read it...so long as your forearm isn't anchored to your body either.

I didn't know that about the NHL rule change - good example.