TaylorMade and Titleist CEO's Speak Up about the USGA and Bifurcation of the Rules - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jspangler 

His clothes are distracting and effects his oppents giving him an unfair advantage, is that really to ridiculous to think of. Other sports have uniforms does that mean the USGA should pass rules stating the uniform rules is blue slacks and a white shirt. I'm really done debating about it, I think mark king is right. I'm gonna ask one last question, how does banning the belly putter make the game better? I want a real answer not "because the integrity of the game" BS either.

In that case no answer is going to convince you, so you might just as well bow out.  The only possible answer is that there is a correct way of making a stroke, and anchoring the club to anything other than the hands and forearms isn't it.  If that argument doesn't hold water for you, then sorry, but that's the only answer there is.  You could as easily ask why does a baseball player get 4 balls, but only 3 strikes?  Why not 5 and 4?  It's because that's how it is.  No logic, it's just the rule.  At least there is some history and tradition behind the anchored stroke prohibition, but in the end, it's going to be the rule in 2016, and that's all that really matters. 

King makes money selling clubs, of course he's going to be against any rules that inhibits his ability to sell new clubs to people with the promise of more distance and forgiveness. 

If he's such a rebel and is prepared to go against the USGA rules why doesn't he produce a new driver that doesn't conform?  Why doesn't he produce new golf balls that don't conform?  If he's really about making the game better and easier why is he adhering to the rules from a group of people he clearly has disdain for (USGA)?  There are companies out there doing what's he's threatening to do, so why hasn't he? 

The reason is simple, his target market doesn't want to buy non-conforming equipment.  He's making a lot of big statements today because he's hoping the PGA and PGA Tour decide to go against the USGA and R&A but in the end he's not going to do anything that hurts TM's credibility within the core market. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

King makes money selling clubs, of course he's going to be against any rules that inhibits his ability to sell new clubs to people with the promise of more distance and forgiveness. 

 

If he's such a rebel and is prepared to go against the USGA rules why doesn't he produce a new driver that doesn't conform?  Why doesn't he produce new golf balls that don't conform?  If he's really about making the game better and easier why is he adhering to the rules from a group of people he clearly has disdain for (USGA)?  There are companies out there doing what's he's threatening to do, so why hasn't he? 

 

The reason is simple, his target market doesn't want to buy non-conforming equipment.  He's making a lot of big statements today because he's hoping the PGA and PGA Tour decide to go against the USGA and R&A but in the end he's not going to do anything that hurts TM's credibility within the core market. 

Great post.  I like this viewpoint. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jspangler 

...Now lets say 5 years from now my back is worse than it is now and I move to a belly putter. My club championship says we are going by USGA rules you can't use that.

Believe me, I sympathize with back issues. But I don't think we can expect the USGA nor your local club, nor the NCAA, nor the NBA, nor the PBA, nor any other rules authority in any sport that has ever existed, to be responsible for making rules that cater to people with bad backs.  Either you can play the sport with whatever aches/pains/disabilities you have, or you can't. If you can't, go ahead and play some modified form of the sport, with non-conforming equipment, either on your own or with whatever organization you can find that has rules you like.

Your issue with not being able to compete without a long putter is analogous to someone with bad knees complaining to their basketball league that the courts at the YMCA where they play should be shorter, because they can't comfortably run up and down them for an entire game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jspangler 

While I don't own any TM gear I agree with Mark King 100%. Right now anyone that cares for this game needs to sit down and think about how to grow this game and quit worrying about the "tradition of the game". The USGA is killing golf with all their rules on how they think a ball should spin or how a putter should look. If you can't make the game fun no one will play, especially today's youth. Now anybody can say what they want but the youth are the only ones that will save golf. Not the 75 year old that has played the same clubs for 15 years. I'm not saying I mind playing with those guys, but eventually those guys won't be golfing anymore and we will wonder why courses are shutting down everywhere.

So the argument is that we have to kill golf to save it?  Count me out,

Full agreement with the quotes above ... another spaceship looking driver isn't going to grow the game.

King's arguments just don't stand up. The two biggest factors that limit how much golf people play, or put them off altogether are time and money. 

As equipment lets people hit the ball further, the courses need to get longer. Longer courses require more land, and more people and equipment to maintain them. Both things that increase the cost of running a course, and thus the amount that needs to be charged for membership/green fees.

And a longer course takes longer to play because it's further to walk or drive. Plus the longer you're hitting the ball, the further off line bad shots will go which just slows things down further.

The more Mark King has his way, the less people are going to play golf because it's going to cost more, and take longer. Of course he will be making more money as people spend more and more on his clubs to keep up, which is really what this is all about. If Taylormade could actually come up with a marketing tactic that isn't just longer, longer, longer then maybe he wouldn't be so upset by this.

I would play by nba rules if that's all the rules there were! So would we all.

Or else we'd all just eff around and play horse and practice shooting around instead of playing proper basketball. 

Nothing wrong with horse, but it's definitely not basketball. 

In the end, I think there enough dissension that will make the (proposed)anchor ban go away.

If the PGA does not go along with the USGA, here we go with the different rules between pros and amateurs (just not the way some intended)

Yes, I use a long putter, but honestly 3 years may as well be a lifetime away at this point - and the actual pro/against percentage of golfers is much different than you will find on the sand trap.

The ball issue is another total issue - some golf companies are already sending out surveys asking if we would play a non-confoming ball - i voted no, but unless the *ball police* are out, it may be a tough one to enforce.

Feel free to take a softball-sized basketball, travel across the court to the 8 ft tall, double-wide rim, and dunk it NBA JAM style all day. But don't demand or expect that the basketball world recognize you as a 'basketball player' or your rules as 'basketball' just because its more fun to you that way.

It would be ridiculous. 

I don't really care for two sets of rules. For me golf is tough regardless of the equipment. As someone that started playing the game in the 70's, with decade old blades and the funky balls of that time, I never thought golf was easy from day one. As a kid the courses were long for me but I thrived on the challenge as I played my way first on to the local muni squad and later on to the county sponsored school teams. I didn't see many people discouraged by the difficultly then, certainly not enough to walk away from the sport. They aren't taking the long putter away just changing how it can be used. If your back hurts you can still use a long putter.

I doubt this will be a popular opinion but what I think brings people to golf is the chance to play the same game the pros play. Not many sports offer that experience. I was avid when Tiger hit the scene and people came out in droves because of him. Courses were clogged overnight. This is an exciting time for golf. It gets more media coverage than any time in the past. We have 24 hour coverage via Golf Channel. We see the full press marketing from the manufacturers with equipment commercials being aired outside of televised golf events.

If there is anything keeping people away from golf courses it's the cost relative to the current economic climate and the slow play issue. I suspect the latter affects experienced players more than new players. The cost only affects those struggling to make ends meet. Considering the frequency, and popularity of the slow play threads here it doesn't appear courses are lacking traffic.

But if cost is a real problem it's due no small part to the advent of the modern golf course that requires expensive maintenance. We didn't know any better back in the day. A half decent park style course was enough to be content. Now we have these expansive mega-facilities requiring lots of water and staff. To keep these courses running requires fees relative to the overhead. I don't think bifurcation is going to fix that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jspangler 

You play by NBA rules? You call 5 sec violation? Over and back? Playing football you call personal fouls? Holding?
Is there really a problem with the PGA playing by one set of restrictions and ametaurs playing by another?

Yes, it is a problem because that would change our game more than this insignificant modification of the definition of what constitutes a stroke.  Your examples are of TEAM sports in which the organized versions have a cadre of officials whose job it is to call fouls.  You simply can't transplant that over onto a sport which is played solo with that task placed on the player.  (Even when playing in a group, you are solo unless it's match play.)   The individual player is responsible for his adherence or nonadherence to the rules.  If you choose the latter, then have at it, but forget about playing in any authorized competition.

You still haven't come with anything persuasive to support your premise.  I still say that your problem isn't with the change itself, but you just have a problem with anyone having the effrontery to try and tell you what you can and can't do.  

Golf courses can adapt to added distance in other ways than adding length.  You can add fairway bunkers, rough, water, trees, etc. to make the risk and reward lean toward playing it safe, but still giving the option to bomb the driver.  I can see capping the distance capabilities of a club or ball, but rolling back the technology we already have is not the answer.

And is there a statistical advantage to belly putters on tour compared to conventional putters?  I don't see a need to outlaw them unless the belly putters give a player an unnatural advantage.  If they were just invented i could see them being outlawed but they have been around for a while now.

Banning the anchored putting stroke (no clubs are being banned, to be clear) is not being done to make the game better, or more fun. Nor are any of the rules written for that purpose necessarily. It's just the line in the sand that is being drawn by the game's governing bodies so that the game doesn't free fall into becoming manipulated by techniques that may make it easier than it (granted, in their experienced and trusted opinion) should be.

Those who we have acknowledged as responsible for governing the sport we play, may indeed make, update, and enforce rules to that end as they see fit. 

Or we can quit playing golf.

Hell, I'd love to ground my club in a bunker. But I can't.  So...I don't. Doesn't make the rule illegitimate cause i wish it wasn't there. Nor does that rule necessarily make the game 'better', or more fun. Just consistent. (some call consistency good, or better for the game.) 

What it does do is prevent potential issues from arising due to a moving ball caused by a club being grounded and moving sand and ball.

Likewise, the anchoring ban is to prevent issues that may arise if an anchored stroke is proven (or suspected, even) of being easier to execute. 

The rules are not written to make anything fun or good. They are to make it fair.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jspangler 

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill 

Believe me, I sympathize with back issues. But I don't think we can expect the USGA nor your local club, nor the NCAA, nor the NBA, nor the PBA, nor any other rules authority in any sport that has ever existed, to be responsible for making rules that cater to people with bad backs.  Either you can play the sport with whatever aches/pains/disabilities you have, or you can't. If you can't, go ahead and play some modified form of the sport, with non-conforming equipment, either on your own or with whatever organization you can find that has rules you like.

Your issue with not being able to compete without a long putter is analogous to someone with bad knees complaining to their basketball league that the courts at the YMCA where they play should be shorter, because they can't comfortably run up and down them for an entire game.

 

I'm sure you're one of them that thinks Casey Martin shouldnt have been able to compete at the US Open?

Absolutely I am one of those, for exactly the reasons I stated above. (And there are a few supreme court justices who agreed with me, they just happened to be in the minority in Martin's case).  On an emotional level, I loved seeing him out there. On a logical/intellectual level, I think it's ridiculous to force a professional sports organization to attempt to negate the inherent disadvantages that disabled persons have.

And btw, Martin's was a special case where it was ruled he didn't have any disability playing the sport of golf, only that he had a disability with respect to walking the course, which was ruled not integral to the game. (Another point that many disagree on.) Point being, his case would've been laughed out of the first courtroom it saw if he had a disability (bad back, for example) that made it difficult to swing a club (including a putter.)