Tiger Wants to Ban the Long Putter

[cowpokealong]

Why should anyone be complaining about another player using a long putter?

Tiger is not exempted from using one himself.

Should we have a ban on clubs with grooves and balls that bite just because someone else can't backspin a shot?

Please, be serious . . . the long putter gives an"unfair advantage" during a drop!  Should a 5'7" player claim an unfair advantage against the 6'6" player during a drop?

Tiger needs to worry about his own game and quit worrying about the design of someone else's putter length.

[jhwmusic]

GURU IS ON FIYA! You are the first newbie sandtrap.com member to go 14 for 14 without one single person agreeing with or even understanding the point of anything you have said thus far. You have completely gone of topic on countless occasions, made strong comments on religions that you obviously don't know anything about, you have accused the majority the members of never reading or knowing anything about the Rules of Golf, took shots against peoples character whom you nothing about just to name a few.... and you have pretty much made an ass out of yourself in the process.. Congrats! You are officially batting 1000! Or would that be the Golden Sombrero? You know, I apologized last night for maybe reading too far into your lecture that you tried to give me in regards to a debate shorty and I were having...even though you didn't read the whole post, know shorty or myself, or even know how the debate ended between us...which was all in fun. But, I figured he's new, and everyone needs to get used to the forum...cuz I know I did. I even felt bad for giving you a little shit and for thinking you were just one of those guys who thinks you know it all. But after reading your posts today, i retract my apology. Cuz you have made it very clear that you are exactly who I thought you were!

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by bilinguru

No I read the thread Brandon.  My point is that we are ALL allowed to putt in our own style.  The fact is that we can ALL use a belly putter or use an anchor method of putting means that there is no advantage.  Either start putting that way or not.  It's your choice.  It's almost like trying to ban stack and tilt.  The fact that you think it's a crap methodology doesn't mean people aren't entitled to use it.

Your logic essentially boils down to, "it's not illegal today, so it shouldn't be illegal.  Furthermore, that it's not illegal means everybody can do it, which means nobody is at a disadvantage."

1) That something has never been outlawed/changed before should never, ever be the sole reason for keeping things the same.

2) As has been mentioned a few times in this thread, any advantage--whether perceived or real--is not at the heart of the issue for some people who want it banned.

Additionally, the "everybody has the ability to equally take advantage of this loophole/non-rule" defense isn't very sound either.

Brandon

[bilinguru]

Quote:

You have completely gone of topic on countless occasions, made strong comments on religions that you obviously don't know anything about, you have accused the majority the members of never reading or knowing anything about the Rules of Golf, took shots against peoples character whom you nothing about just to name a few.... and you have pretty much made an ass out of yourself in the process.

When did I go off topic?

When the topic was Tiger I commented on Tiger.

When the topic was belly putters, I posted about that.

When discussing rules, I brought up rules of soccer to make a point about keeping things simple, but as with the original rules I posted from the 1800's things do change.  Anything wrong with that?

I didn't accuse anyone of anything.

The rulebook is a reference, not nighttime reading, so I doubt most people have sat down and read it.  Nothing sinister in that.

The only comment I made regarding religion was that I doubt Tiger is a real Buddhist.

Another member started debating what Buddhism is all about  He said I didn't know what I was talking about.  Fine, rather than trot out my experience with the practice of Buddhism to try and prove anything I simply said maybe we shouldn't debate religion on the forum.  He agreed.  How he or you could know how much I know about Buddhism is a mystery, but that's what contrary people do; they make asinine generalizations that rational people ignore.

And the only person taking shots at anyone's character seems to be you.

And you call ME a know-it-all ass?  Ironic.

A few of the threads here interested me and I decided to join and contribute a few thoughts.

Now I have to listen to foul mouthed rants by guys who claim have a corner on being right.

Get over yourself.

I'll give my opinion, people can agree or not.

I

[TheGeekGolfer]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Your logic essentially boils down to, "it's not illegal today, so it shouldn't be illegal.  Furthermore, that it's not illegal means everybody can do it, which means nobody is at a disadvantage."

1) That something has never been outlawed/changed before should never, ever be the sole reason for keeping things the same.

2) As has been mentioned a few times in this thread, any advantage--whether perceived or real--is not at the heart of the issue for some people who want it banned.

Additionally, the "everybody has the ability to equally take advantage of this loophole/non-rule" defense isn't very sound either.

Brandon

None of these 'defenses' in here hold up anywhere.  This entire thread is based on opinions.  The logic of "it's not illegal today, so it shouldn't be illegal" is just as valid as "I don't think it's the way a stroke should be made".  They are both arbitrary opinions.  From my reading of most of the posts, it boils down to two camps.

The first camp thinks the way a belly/long putter stroke is made is fine.  That it doesn't detract from the sport or the history of the sport.  It also is and has been legal and doesn't offer any advantage/disadvantage one way or another.

The second camp leans towards the stroke somehow detracting from the sport, that it's not a golf stroke the way it was meant to be made.

I've summarized so forgive me if I generalized a few points.  My point is this, one can easily poke holes in either camp, using their (what they consider) valid stance on the subject.

For instance, in the quote above, Brandon characterizes the ability to use a belly/long putter as a 'loophole/non-rule' to defend his position when I don't think the other poster actually characterized it that way.  Why, because he is in camp #2 (I'm guessing, I didn't go back and read all his posts).  In fact, it's not a 'loophole or non-rule'.  In fact, it's the exact opposite, it's clearly defined in the rules as is evidenced by the lengths the USGA went to when they defined the rules of the club and the grip and the stroke, etc.  In addition, his point (#1 above) that "something has never been outlawed/changed before should never, ever be the sole reason for keeping things the same" is largely irrelevant.  Mainly because no one I've seen who has made that point has ever used that as their 'sole reason'.  They often have a few other reasons they think support their argument.   This poster might have mentioned it as his only reason in this post, probably because he either has already made other points before or was simply adding it as a point to the other ones already made.

In any event, even if it was his only reason, it's still just as valid as "I don't like the way it looks".  Which seems to be the main point of people in camp #2.

[TheGeekGolfer]

Originally Posted by bilinguru

When did I go off topic?

When the topic was Tiger I commented on Tiger.

When the topic was belly putters, I posted about that.

When discussing rules, I brought up rules of soccer to make a point about keeping things simple, but as with the original rules I posted from the 1800's things do change.  Anything wrong with that?

@bilinguru - the only reason I quoted your post about the rules of golf is that I didn't fully understand your point.  I'm guessing it was to make sure everyone has a baseline of knowledge when debating this topic.  Other than that, I have no problem with your posts (those which I have read).  I will admit, I haven't read all the posts.

[robertwc]

Ban it its unfair, golf is a test of nerves. The long putter reduces errors from nervous tension. Why not make a golf ball go 400 yards for everybody it can easily be done, same thing.

[club ho]

The long putters have been around since I started playing serious golf 12 years. Now all of a sudden because they have caught on in popularity A few traditionallists want to ban them. Why not ban metal woods and drivers and return to persimon woods. While we are at it lets go back to wooden shafts. Please just because Tiger wants to screw up a large part of his competition, which I can not blame him for trying, do not take a club variation that has been around for at least 12 years and make a rule to ban it. The time for the rules committee to act on this issue has come and gone IMO.

[newtogolf]

You must not have read the whole thread, it's already been suggested by others that share your opinion.

Originally Posted by club ho

The long putters have been around since I started playing serious golf 12 years. Now all of a sudden because they have caught on in popularity A few traditionallists want to ban them. Why not ban metal woods and drivers and return to persimon woods. While we are at it lets go back to wooden shafts. Please just because Tiger wants to screw up a large part of his competition, which I can not blame him for trying, do not take a club variation that has been around for at least 12 years and make a rule to ban it. The time for the rules committee to act on this issue has come and gone IMO.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by club ho

The long putters have been around since I started playing serious golf 12 years. Now all of a sudden because they have caught on in popularity A few traditionallists want to ban them. Why not ban metal woods and drivers and return to persimon woods. While we are at it lets go back to wooden shafts. Please just because Tiger wants to screw up a large part of his competition, which I can not blame him for trying, do not take a club variation that has been around for at least 12 years and make a rule to ban it. The time for the rules committee to act on this issue has come and gone IMO.

Now here are some original thoughts that we've not heard or read up until now. Should freshen up the conversation.

[club ho]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

You must not have read the whole thread, it's already been suggested by others that share your opinion.

Newtogolf: Apologies if I repeated others opinions but I was simply giving my opinion on the subject. Yes you are right I am not about to wade through 19 pages of posts just to be sure I didn't repeat someone else's opinion. I will continue to make observations as I see fit.

[jhwmusic]

When did I go off topic?

When the topic was Tiger I commented on Tiger.

When the topic was belly putters, I posted about that.

When discussing rules, I brought up rules of soccer to make a point about keeping things simple, but as with the original rules I posted from the 1800's things do change.  Anything wrong with that?

< p>I didn't accuse anyone of anything.

The rulebook is a reference, not nighttime reading, so I doubt most people have sat down and read it.  Nothing sinister in that.

The only comment I made regarding religion was that I doubt Tiger is a real Buddhist.

Another member started debating what Buddhism is all about  He said I didn't know what I was talking about.  Fine, rather than trot out my experience with the practice of Buddhism to try and prove anything I simply said maybe we shouldn't debate religion on the forum.  He agreed.  How he or you could know how much I know about Buddhism is a mystery, but that's what contrary people do; they make asinine generalizations that rational people ignore.

And the only person taking shots at anyone's character seems to be you.

And you call ME a know-it-all ass?  Ironic.

A few of the threads here interested me and I decided to join and contribute a few thoughts.

Now I have to listen to foul mouthed rants by guys who claim have a corner on being right.

Get over yourself.

I'll give my opinion, people can agree or not.

I

No, I said you were a know it all. And you sound like an ass. Just like in your lecture you gave me when said I sound like a "foot"... or do you not remember that? Keep posting and giving your opinion ... you are entitled to that. You attacked my character without even knowing the info and I don't have to like you. I'll just do us both a favor and not comment on anything you say and you can do the same. Fair enough?

[bilinguru]

yep, that's fair.  I'm sure the other people will be relieved.

[LuciusWooding]

Guys, you know there's a block button, right? Protip: hover over the person's username, and "block member" appears in the drop down menu. I've used it myself to great effect, and it beats getting sucked into useless arguments.

[jhwmusic]

Guys, you know there's a block button, right? Protip: hover over the person's username, and "block member" appears in the drop down menu. I've used it myself to great effect, and it beats getting sucked into useless arguments.

Thank you for sharing that! Something about that guy just bugged the hell out of me. Maybe it was the Brady bunch lecture he gave me as his 2nd ever post on the site.. It doesn't matter, now I never have to read another of his comments to me ever again. Thanks!:-D

[bilinguru]

Quote:

Guys, you know there's a block button, right? Protip: hover over the person's username, and "block member" appears in the drop down menu. I've used it myself to great effect, and it beats getting sucked into useless arguments.

Yeah, great advice.  I suspect many things bug the hell out of him.  Anyway 'Blocked' is definitely the way to go with guys who in one post say they will refrain from commenting on anything I will say and in the next post doing just that.

[bilinguru]

Quote:

@bilinguru - the only reason I quoted your post about the rules of golf is that I didn't fully understand your point.  I'm guessing it was to make sure everyone has a baseline of knowledge when debating this topic.  Other than that, I have no problem with your posts (those which I have read).  I will admit, I haven't read all the posts.

Thanks for that.  Yeah that's what I was trying to do.  Could have been clearer I'll admit.

Cheers!

[LuciusWooding]

The beauty of it is, he won't be able to even read that, let alone respond, unless he manually checks the post. Life's too short for either person to argue.