Anchored Putters Rules Change - Page 63

http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/european-tour-will-support-anchored-putting-ban-leaving-pga-tour-odd-man-out

This article makes a lot of good points, but the primary one being that Finchem is basically just covering his bases, as a corporate politician must. He's asking the USGA to back off on the ban, but knows that the Tour would never be able to stand alone (and also knows that there's no reason to make a lot of waves when the majority of Tour players probably either support the ban or don't care either way), so will probably not fight it with any stronger statements or actions than that.  That appeases the anchorers in the Tour, to whom he can say "Hey, I tried".

An article from Sports Illustrated published in 1967, with many interesting parallels.

Well, we've explicitly disqualified data as a means of evaluating the wisdom of this decision, so all we're left with is opinions. And you know what they say about those ... 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordan 

An article from Sports Illustrated published in 1967, with many interesting parallels.

 

 

What I found most interesting about that is two things:

1) How many prominent players on the PGA Tour were against the USGA and voiced a very strong annoyance to their decision.  

2) How it at least appears that the R&A, and Europe in general (meaning their Tour & members) seem to take a much more firm stance on matters of preservation of the game, and really don't care about offending their members/constituents.  Read some of the words they use like "crackpot" and "absurd" when describing the use of the alternative putting methods vs the USGA talking about how reluctant they were to ban croquet style putters/putting.  

I really wonder what this is attributed to?  Does Europe feel a greater sense of ownership of the original intent and nobility of the game since it originated over there?  Do the OEM manufacturers have more influence in the American market which leads to some type of political balancing that the USGA tries to account for when making decisions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stretch 

 

Well, we've explicitly disqualified data as a means of evaluating the wisdom of this decision, so all we're left with is opinions. And you know what they say about those ... 

But there really is no data, is there?  What data exists that speaks directly and relevantly to the issue?

I really wonder what this is attributed to?  Does Europe feel a greater sense of ownership of the original intent and nobility of the game since it originated over there?  Do the OEM manufacturers have more influence in the American market which leads to some type of political balancing that the USGA tries to account for when making decisions?

How about the history of 400+ years of swinging all clubs without anchoring?  That should be all the data needed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt 

 

How about the history of 400+ years of swinging all clubs without anchoring?  That should be all the data needed.

I see your point, but I'm speaking specifically about statistical data.  I inferred from Stretch's post that there was statistical data somewhere that proved that anchoring shouldn't be banned...presumably about it not providing an advantage.  

I suspect you got that, but I'm just clarifying.  

Kind of reminds me of the NFL with the addition of instant replay and the invention of HD TV.  Prior to those two, the definition of a catch needed to be nothing more than "a catch."  You either caught the ball or you didn't, plain and simple.  But now that they have the ability to see super clearly frame by frame what happens, it's extremely important that the definition of a catch take up ten pages in the rule book.  (I'm sure it's not quite 10 pages, but sometimes hyperbole is fun ;))

there was no problem with long putters until King tiger could not win any mayors. 

http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/european-tour-will-support-anchored-putting-ban-leaving-pga-tour-odd-man-out

This article makes a lot of good points, but the primary one being that Finchem is basically just covering his bases, as a corporate politician must. He's asking the USGA to back off on the ban, but knows that the Tour would never be able to stand alone (and also knows that there's no reason to make a lot of waves when the majority of Tour players probably either support the ban or don't care either way), so will probably not fight it with any stronger statements or actions than that.  That appeases the anchorers in the Tour, to whom he can say "Hey, I tried".

How about the history of 400+ years of swinging all clubs without anchoring?  That should be all the data needed.

Erik and a few others posted (way back in the thread) some detailed explanations of why they feel it doesn't matter whether there's any actual evidence to prove that anchoring affords an unfair advantage. I strongly disagree with them on that point, and that's about it.

Erik and a few others posted (way back in the thread) some detailed explanations of why they feel it doesn't matter whether there's any actual evidence to prove that anchoring affords an unfair advantage. I strongly disagree with them on that point, and that's about it.

My personal bias is always going to be in favor of greater personal freedom of choice unless that choice harms someone else. And please show me some actual harm -- you don't just get to claim it's "clearly" against natural law, the will of God or Bobby Jones's dying wish.  

There certainly was another sentence on the end, but I thought better of it. We are at the point now where no one is going to change their mind on this issue and all it does is cause bad feelings. I avoid the few, bullshit political threads around here for this very reason and think I'm going to stay out of this one, too, from now on. 

PS: It does matter. Crap, there I go again.

Woop woop. And in a world where we don't have to substantiate anything at all, you're a ****ing idiot and the USGA are ****ing idiots and R&A are ****ing idiots. Because I say so, and that's all that really counts.

Woop woop. And in a world where we don't have to substantiate anything at all, you're a ****ing idiot and the USGA are ****ing idiots and R&A are ****ing idiots. Because I say so, and that's all that really counts.

Erik and a few others posted (way back in the thread) some detailed explanations of why they feel it doesn't matter whether there's any actual evidence to prove that anchoring affords an unfair advantage. I strongly disagree with them on that point, and that's about it.

What I found most interesting about that is two things:

1) How many prominent players on the PGA Tour were against the USGA and voiced a very strong annoyance to their decision.  

2) How it at least appears that the R&A, and Europe in general (meaning their Tour & members) seem to take a much more firm stance on matters of preservation of the game, and really don't care about offending their members/constituents.  Read some of the words they use like "crackpot" and "absurd" when describing the use of the alternative putting methods vs the USGA talking about how reluctant they were to ban croquet style putters/putting.  

I really wonder what this is attributed to?  Does Europe feel a greater sense of ownership of the original intent and nobility of the game since it originated over there?  Do the OEM manufacturers have more influence in the American market which leads to some type of political balancing that the USGA tries to account for when making decisions?

But there really is no data, is there?  What data exists that speaks directly and relevantly to the issue?

It's like someone said a while ago: A slingshot may afford no advantage to getting a golf ball around a course, but it doesn't mean it belongs in the game. The USGA and R&A exist to make such arbitrary decisions. (I know, analogies usually suck and that one prob does as well, but it's all I got...)

Woop woop. And in a world where we don't have to substantiate anything at all, you're a ****ing idiot and the USGA are ****ing idiots and R&A are ****ing idiots. Because I say so, and that's all that really counts.