Quote:
Originally Posted by
ay33660 
For the good of the game, I really hope the USGA and the R&A don't back down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
inthehole
couldn't agree more.
Add me to the list. But of course this makes me a blind jerk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stretch
I love how the position of absolute moral certainty that you operate from informs your view of anyone who doesn't share your convictions. They must be denigrated -- "sell out", "politicians" etc. -- and their positions may simply be dismissed out of hand -- "sad", "pathetic", "illogical", "straw men" -- without the inconvenience of actually engaging in debate. This is pretty much exactly what I meant by the previous comment you found so beneath me.
Let's look at this logically. The PGA Players Advisory Council and Policy Council are politicians, in the sense that they are elected to represent the views of the rest of the Tour's members. They polled those members and found that the "overwhelming majority" (according to Steve Stricker) of them were opposed to the ban. Following generally-accepted democratic principles, they reported this up to the Tour's executive branch, personified by Finchem, who then presented their position to the USGA, which had asked all interested parties to do exactly this in the first place.
The fact that you're able to conclude from this that Finchem and the US pros are all sleazy douchebags says a lot more about you than them.
Okay, I'll call your bluff now that you want to try to stand on the moral high ground. First, I'll point out that I've "engag[ed]" in the debate longer than this thread has existed, and my arguments are pretty much public knowledge in that anybody can search for them and read them. They stand on merit, not how gently they are or aren't worded. You can pretend that I've not engaged the debate all you want, but you and I both know that isn't true. Pretending that I have to re-state my opinion and argument every single time I post is disingenuous and reeks of an agenda. But considering that you already knew that, I'll play along with this charade and go ahead and have whatever debate you want to have about this topic as if it hasn't been stated and either accepted, refuted and/or ignored already.
Let's start with your "logic." You can assume the politicians (which is a denigration when I use it, but not when you use it apparently) are operating with an altruistic motive if you so choose, but to pretend that that is the only logical conclusion is naive at best. It's one of the possible/likely scenarios, but certainly no reasonable person would claim it's the only one nor the most likely, given all other circumstances that you are apparently willing to either ignore or ascribe no importance to.
Now, please, lay out the rest of your argument so that we can have this honorable debate that you clearly want to have which is free from straw men and illogical analogies that are later backed away from. I'll be waiting to respond in kind, with merit. Afterwards you can get emotional, defensive and question my character all you want.
Let's start from here:
Quote:
Throughout the 600-year history of golf, the essence of playing the game has been to grip the club with the hands and swing it freely at the ball.
The player's challenge is to control the movement of the entire club in striking the ball, and anchoring the club alters the nature of that challenge. Our conclusion is that the Rules of Golf should be amended to preserve the traditional character of the golf swing by eliminating the growing practice of anchoring the club.
Lay out exactly why you either disagree with this or feel it isn't relevant.
