Tiger Wants to Ban the Long Putter

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by dave67az

Maybe I misunderstood.  I'm not going to go back to see who said it.  May have been you, may have been someone else.  But SOMEONE was trying to say that since they've let people use it for 20 years, and since the USGA has never banned something after letting people use it for 20 years, that they shouldn't be able to ban it THIS time.

That argument is illogical, in my opinion.  To say that just because something has not been done before means it SHOULDN'T be done is not based on logic, rather it's based solely on emotion.

When faced with new circumstances (just as in the court system) the situation should be evaluated solely on its merits.  I mean seriously, do you think we would have ANY rules in golf if there hadn't been a first time for everything?

"Well, they've never limited the number of clubs we had before, so why are they doing it now?"

"Well, they've never said the golf balls shouldn't have a maximum distance before, so they shouldn't do it now."

- Dave

Exactly.  For most of those 20 years it was looked at as something relatively benign that aging golfers picked up, and so few used them that it just wasn't worth looking at.  In the last 5 years it has become far more widespread at the top levels (but again, I hardly ever see a person at my local courses use one) and are being used by much younger players.  Nobody really cared about croquet style putting until it occurred in a high profile context (Sam Snead).  Then they took action.  I think it is the same now with anchoring.  It has become high profile and now it will be looked at.  Probably should have happened sooner, but there it is.  Better late than never.

[Chas]

Originally Posted by drillers80

You, my friend, are in luck: http://www.ebay.com/itm/JERRY-BARBER-GOLDEN-TOUCH-3-PW-IRONS-SET-900-/360480346468?pt=Golf_Clubs&hash;=item53ee4d9164#ht_500wt_1203

Interesting story behind their invention here:http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1300&dat;=19801014&id;=eftUAAAAIBAJ&sjid;=cZIDAAAAIBAJ&pg;=2086,6979362

I'd need to think this through as far as your putting question (as though what I say matters- but you did ask so...). In general, having started playing in the 70's with dead balls, blades and persimmon woods, I tend to really dislike anything that has robbed the game of its difficulty. I do not like that it's easier to hit the ball further. I do not like super forgiving clubs. So I'm a bit of an old school type and I think one should have to work really hard to play this game well. If a player has a weakness, it should be through work, rather than technology that the weakness is overcome.

Very nice post, thanks for the different perspective.  I tend to agree with you, even though I've only been playing "seriously" for about ten years.  But I wouldn't want to go back to a smaller volume driver, though I would if I had to.  Since courses are now designed around longer hitting drivers I consider that decision to be irreversible, in practical terms.  The same cannot be said for long putters, which clearly ARE of significant benefit to some players who have trouble controlling standard putters but which have not themselves influenced course design.

To other posters:  the fact that some pro golfers have not changed to long putters (yet ...) does not in any way contradict the point that SOME players benefit to a major extent from using long putters, which they find easier to control.  Most of us can all think of examples, including pros who flatly state the advantage that long putters have given them over their experience with standard ones.  A certain German golfer on the Senior Tour would be one.

There is no "right" or "wrong" in this, it is a matter of where your values stand in the matter.  No need for people to get overly excited.

[Chas]

Originally Posted by The Recreational Golfer

I have no idea what the grounds would be, nor can I think of any legal precedents that might be brought into play. But then, that's what you pay a lawyer to come up with, much like Casey Martin and the golf cart.

I really do think we'll see some legal action if anchoring is banned. Not that I condone it or oppose it (legal action), I just think it will happen.

Legal action may occur - this is America after all, noone can prevent an action being brought - but what matters is whether or not such an action will be successful.

What do you consider the likelihood of a successful action be, 'successful' from the point of view of the plaintiff that is?  In my mind it is near zero - how about you?

[dave67az]

Legal action is pointless.  I'm not a lawyer, but I've watched enough legal shows to get the gist of how law works.  It's pretty straight-forward and logical.  Here's a few legal points which I think are well-established.

1.  The USGA has the authority to establish rules.  Doesn't mean you HAVE to follow those rules, but if you're in playing in a USGA-sanctioned event, failure to follow those rules can result in disqualification.  I've bowled in leagues and tournaments for nearly 40 years.  I've been the president of some of those leagues.  The USGA to me works the same as the USBC does for bowling.  You can play your own personal version of golf, with as many clubs as you want, made in your own workshop to your standards if you like.  This is your freedom.  But if anyone argues that the USGA doesn't have a right to make rules for USGA events, well, you're just being illogical.

2.  Page 41, "Clubs and the Ball" states that " The United States Golf Association reserves the right, at any time, to change the Rules relating to clubs and balls (see Appendices II and III) and make or change the interpretations relating to these Rules ."  Pretty straight-forward I think.  If the USGA decided to IMMEDIATELY place a ban on long putters, they could do so.  Period.  They neither HAVE to wait until the next rules book comes out, or HAVE to grandfather in anyone.  If they choose to do that, it's their CHOICE, not a requirement.  They stated as such right here in the rules.

3.  Page 42: 4-1. Form and Make of Clubs  a. General.  The player’s clubs must conform with this Rule and the provisions,
specifications and interpretations set forth in Appendix II. Also straight-forward.  "Must" is pretty strong legal language.  It means it's not an option.  Not "should".  Not "may".  "Must".  We dealt with this distinction in my military career when interpreting Air Force regulations and the UCMJ.  "Must" simply means you absolutely have to do it.  If you fail to do it, you are in violation of the rules.

4.  Page 67: 14-3. Artificial Devices, Unusual Equipment and Unusual Use of Equipment.  The USGA reserves the right, at any time, to change the Rules relating to artificial devices, unusual equipment and the unusual use of equipment , and to make or change the interpretations relating to these Rules. Key phrase here is "unusual equipment and the unusual use of equipment".  Also note that the USGA may interpret a rule one way and CHANGE that interpretation at a later time at their discretion.  Just because they interpret a rule one way does not mean they have to STICK to that interpretation indefinitely.  Now, the term "unusual" is rather subjective, but the USGA states very clearly that they reserve the right to interpret their rules (since they are, in fact, the creators of the rules).

Also on page 67: Except as provided in the Rules, during a stipulated round the player must not use any artificial device or unusual equipment (see Appendix IV for detailed specifications and interpretations), or use any equipment in an unusual manner : a. That might assist him in making a stroke or in his play ; or b. For the purpose of gauging or measuring distance or conditions that might affect his play; or c. That might assist him in gripping the club, except that: (i) gloves may be worn provided that they are plain gloves; (ii) resin, powder and drying or moisturizing agents may be used; and (iii) a towel or handkerchief may be wrapped around the grip. In other words, if the USGA determines that someone is using ANY equipment, whether approved or not, in an "unusual manner" and they believe that the use in that "unusual way" makes it easier for said player to make a stroke or in his play, they have the right to interpret this as a violation of the rules.

5.  The USGA also publishes a rules supplement entitled "A Modification of the Rules of Golf for Golfers with Disabilities".  In this supplement, the following statement explains the USGA's goal: I n modifying the Rules of Golf for golfers with disabilities, the desired result should allow the disabled golfer to play equitably with an able-bodied individual or a golfer with another type of disability. It is important to understand that this critical objective will occasionally result in a modification to a Rule which may seem unfair at first glance because a more simplified answer may appear to exist when two golfers with the same disability are playing against one another. In a later section the USGA states: There are many golfers who have physical limitations which may result in some degree of disability and which may have a significant impact on their ability to play the game. Examples include visually impaired golfers and golfers who cannot grip a club because of severe arthritis or missing digits. The foregoing Rules modifications do not specifically apply to these individuals. However, in cases where an artificial device, such as a brace or a gripping aid, will allow these individuals to play, the USGA will review and issue a decision, on a case-by-case basis, as to whether or not the use of such a device constitutes a breach of Rule 14-3 (Artificial Devices and Unusual Equipment). Any player may request a ruling on an assistive device which they wish to use by submitting a written request to the USGA.

So as far as getting any ADA-related (Americans with Disabilities Act) judgements (such as Martin vs PGA, Olinger vs USGA, Ja Ro Jones vs USGA) as long as the USGA and PGA evaluate each player's circumstance (as they say they will do in their rules) those players will not have grounds for a ruling until four things happen:

1.  The rule must be changed disallowing long putters or an anchored putting style.

2.  A player must petition the USGA/PGA to be allowed to use one based on a documented medical conditon.

3.  The USGA/PGA must deny this petition.  (You can't sue them if they accept your petition.)

4.  The court must find that long or anchored putters give players no significant advantage over traditional putters.

The only reason Martin vs PGA was decided in his favor is because the court ruled that " There is no doubt that allowing Martin to use a cart would not fundamentally alter the nature of petitioner’s tournaments, given the District Court’s uncontested finding that Martin endures greater fatigue with a cart than his able-bodied competitors do by walking. "

This is why I don't think there will be a slew of lawsuits.  You can't file a class-action suit based on the ADA since the USGA/PGA has rules in place to handle each case individually (which is completely legal according to the ADA since each individual's disability is unique and it is impossible to have a "blanket rule" for disabled persons and maintain the fairness of the competition).

Whew.

Us medical types sure know how to be long-winded, don't we?  :-)

- Dave

[drillers80]

Originally Posted by Chas

Very nice post, thanks for the different perspective.  I tend to agree with you, even though I've only been playing "seriously" for about ten years.  But I wouldn't want to go back to a smaller volume driver, though I would if I had to.  Since courses are now designed around longer hitting drivers I consider that decision to be irreversible, in practical terms.  The same cannot be said for long putters, which clearly ARE of significant benefit to some players who have trouble controlling standard putters but which have not themselves influenced course design.

To other posters:  the fact that some pro golfers have not changed to long putters (yet ...) does not in any way contradict the point that SOME players benefit to a major extent from using long putters, which they find easier to control.  Most of us can all think of examples, including pros who flatly state the advantage that long putters have given them over their experience with standard ones.  A certain German golfer on the Senior Tour would be one.

There is no "right" or "wrong" in this, it is a matter of where your values stand in the matter.  No need for people to get overly excited.

I'm glad you appreciate my perspective. I've experienced most of the equipment advances since the Gutta Percha ball. :) When I was playing on my Junior College team in 1981, we were treated to an exhibition by Spaulding Staff players Dave Stockton, and Al Geiberger at Stockdale country Club in Bakersfield. They both had these weird metal clubs that they were demoing. The clubs seemed to have an abundance of weight in the sole, making it easy to get the ball airborne. To prove this, they were throwing balls in divots and hitting out of them with these fairway woods with astonishing results.

As soon as we were able, just about every one of us on that team had ourselves the new Taylor made "metalwood". I've still got that fairway driver, the original one. The next series was stamped "original one" on it, since they added a spoon and other clubs not long after. But mine is the first run in the production, and I wonder how much dough I could get for it if someone knew the history. Not that I want to sell it- it's still a superior club.

Society nowadays wants everything faster. That includes getting better at a sport, or a game, or anything. I have to disagree with you on clubhead size- I think the size is way over the top, making solid strikes far too easy with the driver. Not much has changed with the size of fairway woods, with the exception of materials and spring-like effect (great for distance, terrible for distance control). I just think the USGA dropped their pants for manufacturers back when all this technology started coming into play, because they feared the cost of litigation when the companies started saber rattling. That's why golf courses are designed differently now and classic ones are becoming obsolete. And I think that's a tragedy in the golf world.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by drillers80

I'm glad you appreciate my perspective. I've experienced most of the equipment advances since the Gutta Percha ball. :) When I was playing on my Junior College team in 1981, we were treated to an exhibition by Spaulding Staff players Dave Stockton, and Al Geiberger at Stockdale country Club in Bakersfield. They both had these weird metal clubs that they were demoing. The clubs seemed to have an abundance of weight in the sole, making it easy to get the ball airborne. To prove this, they were throwing balls in divots and hitting out of them with these fairway woods with astonishing results.

As soon as we were able, just about every one of us on that team had ourselves the new Taylor made "metalwood". I've still got that fairway driver, the original one. The next series was stamped "original one" on it, since they added a spoon and other clubs not long after. But mine is the first run in the production, and I wonder how much dough I could get for it if someone knew the history. Not that I want to sell it- it's still a superior club.

Society nowadays wants everything faster. That includes getting better at a sport, or a game, or anything. I have to disagree with you on clubhead size- I think the size is way over the top, making solid strikes far too easy with the driver. Not much has changed with the size of fairway woods, with the exception of materials and spring-like effect (great for distance, terrible for distance control). I just think the USGA dropped their pants for manufacturers back when all this technology started coming into play, because they feared the cost of litigation when the companies started saber rattling. That's why golf courses are designed differently now and classic ones are becoming obsolete. And I think that's a tragedy in the golf world.

I remember after I got my Spalding Executives, they came out with a bizarre version (the XE) that I seem to recall took a lot of heat from golfers who thought the concept was silly.  Now I'm getting back into the game and I find out everyone is talking about "hybrids".  Interesting how opinions change over the years.

As for the USGA "dropping their pants", I wonder how much of that had to do with their hopes that MAYBE with all the bizarre equipment it will somehow encourage more people to play the game and take an interest in the sport.  After Tiger came on the scene and it became "cool" for kids to be interested in golf, I wonder if they're not so worried about new golfers and just want to focus on getting back to the roots of the game.

A lot of speculation, I know.

Then again, I doubt the same people who were at the USGA "dropping their pants" are still the ones running the show.  With changes in people, don't you expect changes in focus?

I'm all for tradition.

Don't get me started about the designated hitter rule.

- Dave

[drillers80]

Ha ha yeah the DH.... Don't get me started either. I'm sure it was a case of both, meaning that they feared litigation, and also they foresaw that any easier game meant more golfers. Who knows? I remember those Executive irons. If they're the ones I'm thinking of they have huge soles, yes?

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by drillers80

Ha ha yeah the DH.... Don't get me started either. I'm sure it was a case of both, meaning that they feared litigation, and also they foresaw that any easier game meant more golfers. Who knows?

I remember those Executive irons. If they're the ones I'm thinking of they have huge soles, yes?

Yep, that's them.

Here's a pic to jog the memory.

Witness the birth of a hybrid.

[Chas]

This thread has really diverged from putters.  But that's fine with me, everything possible has already been said on that subject .....

drillers:  I see your points and I congratulate you on the consistency of your logic.  I have mixed feelings about the 460 for the reasons you suggest, but I use one  because otherwise my chances of GIR would be diminished on many courses (unless I played from the forward tees) and because it's legal.  It does feel good to hit the ball way out there off the tee, but not so good when you miss almost all the fairways like I did earlier this week at Poppy Hills.  In that case length is your ENEMY - the farther you hit it, the bigger trouble you get into.

The long putter does seem like a basic violation to me, of the principle that the game of golf should be played only with the use of the hands and maybe the arms to some extent.  It looks rather ridiculous to see a club rotating about, and in contact with, some other part of the body such as the belly button.   Call me Old Fashioned ....

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Chas

This thread has really diverged from putters.

Doesn't have to. Back to the topic! :)

[Jlora]

saw interview where he said it should be banned. specifically said ti should be shortest club in bag and anchoring should not be allowed.  Think was smart enough to realize that there the real issue is that golf was meant to be played with two hands and arms "swinging the club" and that both anchoing and length of putter can be used alone or together to cause this

[broomhandle]

Originally Posted by dave67az

Maybe I misunderstood.  I'm not going to go back to see who said it.  May have been you, may have been someone else.  But SOMEONE was trying to say that since they've let people use it for 20 years, and since the USGA has never banned something after letting people use it for 20 years, that they shouldn't be able to ban it THIS time.

That argument is illogical, in my opinion.  To say that just because something has not been done before means it SHOULDN'T be done is not based on logic, rather it's based solely on emotion.

When faced with new circumstances (just as in the court system) the situation should be evaluated solely on its merits.  I mean seriously, do you think we would have ANY rules in golf if there hadn't been a first time for everything?

"Well, they've never limited the number of clubs we had before, so why are they doing it now?"

"Well, they've never said the golf balls shouldn't have a maximum distance before, so they shouldn't do it now."

- Dave

the logic goes like this:

If long putters aren't golf they should be banned

They aren't golf.

therefore: They should be banned.

which in symbolic logic is

if A then B

A

therefore B

if I show that A is false then the conclusion B is not proven

I claim that A is false because long putters have been golf forever implicitly and for 20 years explicitly.

Logical argument would proceed to discuss if 20 years were enough to establish something as 'golf' and similar issues.

Introducing the obviously false and non-sensical strawman of "you can't change the rules because they're the rules" is nothing but a waste of time.

No functional human being doesn't know better so it's obviously not the point they are trying to make.

Extend the same logic further-

If Bob says "wooden tees should be banned because they're not golf" and Bill says they've been in the game for a hundred years who is being illogical?  Would you think that Bill is saying the ra/usga have no right to ban wooden tees because they're legal today?

If Bob's argument were specifically that wooden tees should be banned because golf should be played literally off the ground then a counterargument stating that they've been in the game 100 years would be totally illogical.

[newtogolf]

That logic is completely flawed.  The mere fact something has been done for years does not prove it's correct or valid.  If that was the case, rules or laws would never evolve or change.

Originally Posted by broomhandle

the logic goes like this:

If long putters aren't golf they should be banned

They aren't golf.

therefore: They should be banned.

which in symbolic logic is

if A then B

A

therefore B

if I show that A is false then the conclusion B is not proven

I claim that A is false because long putters have been golf forever implicitly and for 20 years explicitly.

Logical argument would proceed to discuss if 20 years were enough to establish something as 'golf' and similar issues.

Introducing the obviously false and non-sensical strawman of "you can't change the rules because they're the rules" is nothing but a waste of time.

No functional human being doesn't know better so it's obviously not the point they are trying to make.

Extend the same logic further-

If Bob says "wooden tees should be banned because they're not golf" and Bill says they've been in the game for a hundred years who is being illogical?  Would you think that Bill is saying the ra/usga have no right to ban wooden tees because they're legal today?

If Bob's argument were specifically that wooden tees should be banned because golf should be played literally off the ground then a counterargument stating that they've been in the game 100 years would be totally illogical.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by broomhandle

the logic goes like this:

If long putters aren't golf they should be banned

They aren't golf.

therefore: They should be banned.

which in symbolic logic is

if A then B

A

therefore B

if I show that A is false then the conclusion B is not proven

I claim that A is false because long putters have been golf forever implicitly and for 20 years explicitly.

Logical argument would proceed to discuss if 20 years were enough to establish something as 'golf' and similar issues.

Introducing the obviously false and non-sensical strawman of "you can't change the rules because they're the rules" is nothing but a waste of time.

No functional human being doesn't know better so it's obviously not the point they are trying to make.

Extend the same logic further-

If Bob says "wooden tees should be banned because they're not golf" and Bill says they've been in the game for a hundred years who is being illogical?  Would you think that Bill is saying the ra/usga have no right to ban wooden tees because they're legal today?

If Bob's argument were specifically that wooden tees should be banned because golf should be played literally off the ground then a counterargument stating that they've been in the game 100 years would be totally illogical.

These were your words.  "When the main attack is that long putters are 'not golf' or 'inappropriate' or not 'proper' then I think the fact that they have been ruled as proper golf and appropriate for a considerable span of years should be a very large factor in the argument."

You say that "No functional human being doesn't know better" than to say that "you can't change the rules because they're the rules", but this is EXACTLY what you said.  This is no strawman.  You said that since they had been approved for a "considerable span of years" then this should be a "large factor" in the argument.  You should make up your mind whether you believe this or not, because you can't say it in one post and then say that "no functional human being" would say that.

Here's the language of the rules, word for word.  " the player must not use any artificial device or unusual equipment (see Appendix IV for detailed specifications and interpretations), or use any equipment in an unusual manner : a. That might assist him in making a stroke or in his play".

And for something to be "usual" it requires a little more than the fact that a very small percentage of people somewhere are doing it.  This is a pretty common interpretation of the word "usual" wouldn't you say?  What's the usual method for eating fried chicken?  With your hands.  There are some people who cut the chicken off the bone and eat it with a knife and fork, but I'm betting a large (certainly a majority) percentage does it with their hands.  I, therefore, would NOT be out of line to say that eating with knife and fork is "unusual".

So the question is only whether using an anchored putter can be interpreted by the USGA as "unusual" or whether a long putter can be deemed "unusual".  The USGA itself has been around since 22 December, 1894.  The game of golf has been around much longer than that.  Over the majority of that time period, what has been "usual" for putter design and the putting stroke?  Can the use of long putters and/or anchored putters be interpreted as either "unusual" or something that assists the player "in making a stroke or in his play"?

BOTH are subjective, therefore it's up to the interpretation of the USGA.  It makes no difference whether they interpreted it differently 20 years ago.  It's not all that odd to try something for a while and THEN interpret its effect on the game and whether it changes the game from it's "usual" form.

Now, you could say that this isn't "fair" because technically the USGA could interpret ANY piece of equipment or ANY method used by a minority of the players as being "unusual" using this logic.  But they reserve the right to do that, which means they would probably only do it if they thought that the game of golf was getting "too far" away from its traditional (i.e. "usual") playing style.  Their job is to protect the traditions of golf while still allowing the gradual evolution of the game.  Maybe (I'm speculating, of course) they think long/anchored putters are too quick of a jump.  Maybe they feel like the putting style just looks "silly" and "unusual".  But I can bet they'll be happy to explain their ruling if and when they make it.  Only then will we know their reasoning...until then ALL of us will just be speculating.

But to make it sound as if there's some sort of objective argument or an objective decision-making process that the USGA must rely on to make this decision is deceptive.  No, they don't.  They could even ban long putters (chest-anchored) while still allowing belly putters if they wanted.  It's all up to THEIR interpretation and has NOTHING to do with any objective, logical decision-making process that you or anyone else wants to come up with.

We're the kids.  They're the parents.  And if they want to say "because we said so" that's their right.  It's their game to manage.  We just play it.  If you don't like this, you can play it however you want, but whomever you're playing against may have something to say about it.

- Dave

[broomhandle]

Look at it the other way around. Isn't any argument based on tradition that they should be banned basically the mirror image of what you're accusing me of?

Since long putters weren't used 50 years ago they shouldn't be legal to use now?

How can it be ok to say they should be banned because they weren't used 50 years ago but 'illogical and emotional' to say that they shouldn't be banned because they have been used for 20 years?

I agree completely that what you're accusing me of would be totally illogical.

That's why I"M NOT SAYING THAT.

Any argument from 'tradition' or 'proper' or 'appropriate' involves facts of the history of the game.

I'm not allowed to make a point about the last 20 years of the history of the game because that is superficially similar to an argument I completely reject?

[broomhandle]

I also basically agree with your summary.

This really is going to be a political battle to see if the fundamentalists can concentrate enough influence to force the rest of us to do what they deem proper.

Logic will be irrelevant to the end result.

[Willie Malay]

Why do you think this has got so much media attention and media slant against it? T I G E R. The guy is pure scum.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by broomhandle

Look at it the other way around. Isn't any argument based on tradition that they should be banned basically the mirror image of what you're accusing me of?

Since long putters weren't used 50 years ago they shouldn't be legal to use now?

How can it be ok to say they should be banned because they weren't used 50 years ago but 'illogical and emotional' to say that they shouldn't be banned because they have been used for 20 years?

I agree completely that what you're accusing me of would be totally illogical.

That's why I"M NOT SAYING THAT.

Any argument from 'tradition' or 'proper' or 'appropriate' involves facts of the history of the game.

I'm not allowed to make a point about the last 20 years of the history of the game because that is superficially similar to an argument I completely reject?

I'm not trying to be argumentative or accuse you of anything.  I was just reminding you of your words.

You seem to be avoiding one word--the most important word--in the rulebook:  "unusual".  You keep saying things like "proper" and "appropriate" which do NOT mean the same thing.  "Proper" and "appropriate" require a judgement of right and/or wrong.  "Unusual" simply means something that isn't done by the majority of people.

To answer your question about whether this is like saying "Since long putters weren't used 50 years ago they shouldn't be legal to use now", the answer is simply "no".  There is no "SHOULD be banned" or "SHOULDN'T be banned".  The USGA gets to decide based on their interpretation, and they understand that this interpretation may be different than it was in the past, and they also understand that it may be different than a ruling 5 or 10 years from now.  But there is no "should" or "shouldn't".  There are no blanket policies in situations like this.  Each situation is evaluated on its own merits.

Your insistence of using words like "proper", "appropriate", "should", "shouldn't" are implying some external set of rules exist which the USGA absolutely must follow.  You keep referring to what the USGA "should" do.  You keep talking about what's "proper".  According to whom?  Exactly what set of rules do you think the USGA should be required to follow?  It doesn't sound like you're happy with them following their OWN rules--the ones they publish and willingly distribute free of charge, in both downloadable format and golf-bag-sized-paperback (you pay the shipping).  They don't have to follow anyone else's rules, and I'm perfectly fine with that.  It doesn't matter whether anyone else thinks it's "proper" or "appropriate" as long as the USGA thinks it's best for the game of golf.

I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but it's starting to sound like you expect the USGA to do what you want, using your rules of decision-making, rather than use their considerable experience not just PLAYING the game, but managing the game for all these years.  You keep saying what they "should" and "shouldn't" do.  I think if you look back at my posts, I might express my opinion as to whether I would use long putters or the anchored style, and I might express my opinion as to whether I think they would have cause for banning it, but I don't recall EVER saying what the USGA should or shouldn't do.

Do I think they would be able to justify banning it if they chose to?  Yep.

Do I think they would be able to justify NOT banning it?  Yep.

Do I think I have access to all of the information that THEY do when it comes to making this decision?  Nope.

Do I think that you have access to all of the information that THEY do?  Nope.

- Dave