Jump to content
IGNORED

Tiger Wants to Ban the Long Putter


brocks
Note: This thread is 4076 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

You jumped in in the middle and criticized me for my 'illogical' replies to other people.

THEY were making arguments based on 'proper', 'traditional', whatever.

My point was never that the rules can't change.

It was that their REASON for saying the rules should change was questionable.

The main point I've been trying to make is that the logic of a counter argument is related to what the original argument was.

Sometimes mentioning facts about the history of the game is logical and relevant. Sometimes it's not.

Of course this is all of no practical impact. We all yak about what we think should be done and it has no impact on what does happen.(Unless there is somebody in the thread with some political pull in usga and an open enough mind to be influenced)

My opinion of what ra/usga  'should' do is nothing because there is no problem to fix.

I think that congresspersons 'should' tell me the truth.

I don't have much hope of either happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Well my apologies if I misunderstood you.  I thought a few people had said that they felt anchored putting should be banned because it was unusual/untraditional, and I thought you disagreed with that argument.  I also thought you tried to make a case that it wasn't even unusual.  I don't want to search through all these pages of posts, so I'll take your word for it.  Again, my apologies if I confused you with someone else.  It is, indeed, unusual by definition.  I hope we can agree on that.

I agree with you, that the logic of a counter argument should be based on the original argument.  Actually, there were several "original arguments" in this now-41-page thread.  Among them were (paraphrased) "Tiger Woods is a lying, cheating ***** so who cares what he thinks", "Long/Belly putters do or do not give golfers any advantage", "The Cornhuskers are a bunch of lying, cheating SOBs and they robbed my Missouri Tigers of a win by CLEARLY kicking at a ball", "throwing underhanded in cricket is unsportsmanlike", "it's the USGA's job to make sure that golf's traditional playing methods are preserved", "the traditional (i.e. 'usual') way of putting is by standing beside the line of the putt and holding the club in two hands that touch each other while the club touches no other part of the body but the hands", "very rarely in history has the USGA banned something that they had previously explicitly allowed".

I hope the USGA does what they think is right for the game of golf.  I hope they have enough experience to make that decision without being influenced by golf manufacturers or anyone else who stands to profit from the decision.  I would like to think that the USGA isn't as bad as our politicians when it comes to selling their votes to someone that we, the golfers, don't give a damn about.

- Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites


First off let's make it clear one last time that I am at no point arguing that the rules can't change. If you think I am I didn't make my point clearly.

Lots of people have used the word traditional. As far as I know you're the first to emphasize the word 'usual'. Nothing wrong with that.

The specific verbiage you quoted though, has to do with non-club equipment like braces, rangefinders, whatnot.

Maybe the principle applies to clubs also. Or 'should' :)

I claim that many things are traditional while still not being usual. Chippers have been around forever but not very commonly used especially by pros. Split handed putting with a normal length putter is a very similar example. Cross handed putting and even cross handed full shots. Wrist putting(which could be considered anchored) went through one phase of being pretty usual around the 50s but for most of the history of golf has been traditional but not usual. Through most of the history of golf left handed play has been unusual to the point where some great players have been left hand people who played right handed(Hogan,Miller) Belly putting was invented at least as far back as the 40s by Paul Runyan. Maybe that's not enough for 'tradition' but he did mention it in his mass-market short game book in the 80's and nobody jumped on it and said this must not be legal because it's not usual.

Things go from unusual to usual also. Metal shafts were existent but unusual for decades before they became usual. Sand wedges with bounce. Lob wedges. Hybrids. Graphite shafts. 'Spikeless' shoes. Obviously there is no compulsion on the part of the ra/usga that they need to make everything unusual illegal before it becomes usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by broomhandle

First off let's make it clear one last time that I am at no point arguing that the rules can't change. If you think I am I didn't make my point clearly.

Lots of people have used the word traditional. As far as I know you're the first to emphasize the word 'usual'. Nothing wrong with that.

The specific verbiage you quoted though, has to do with non-club equipment like braces, rangefinders, whatnot.

Maybe the principle applies to clubs also. Or 'should' :)

I claim that many things are traditional while still not being usual. Chippers have been around forever but not very commonly used especially by pros. Split handed putting with a normal length putter is a very similar example. Cross handed putting and even cross handed full shots. Wrist putting (which could be considered anchored) went through one phase of being pretty usual around the 50s but for most of the history of golf has been traditional but not usual. Through most of the history of golf left handed play has been unusual to the point where some great players have been left hand people who played right handed(Hogan,Miller) Belly putting was invented at least as far back as the 40s by Paul Runyan. Maybe that's not enough for 'tradition' but he did mention it in his mass-market short game book in the 80's and nobody jumped on it and said this must not be legal because it's not usual.

Things go from unusual to usual also. Metal shafts were existent but unusual for decades before they became usual. Sand wedges with bounce. Lob wedges. Hybrids. Graphite shafts. 'Spikeless' shoes. Obviously there is no compulsion on the part of the ra/usga that they need to make everything unusual illegal before it becomes usual.

I think the emphasis that some people have placed on "traditional" has to do not with what is stated in the USGA rules, rather the purpose of the USGA in general to maintain the traditions of the game of golf.  My emphasis on the word "usual" was merely an attempt to explain that the USGA, as they've stated in the rules, doesn't think that SOME unusual styles or unusual equipment is good for the future of the game.

I will disagree with your interpretation of the rule (14-3) that I quoted, however.  You say that the rule addresses "non-club equipment like braces, rangefinders, whatnot" but this is not ALL it addresses.  You're focusing on the first two parts of the rule "Artificial devices and Unusual Equipment" and ignoring the last:  "Unusual Use of Equipment".  I'll quote it again for simplicity's sake.

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 .

About that last bit:  "Unusual Use of Equipment".  This is not, in fact, unusual use of unusual equipment (a redundancy), rather it's the unusual use of any equipment.

So what's "equipment"?  I refer you to the Definitions section of the USGA rulebook, which defines Equipment in this way:

Equipment

Equipment ” is anything used, worn or carried by the player or anything carried for the player by his partner or either of their caddies , except any ball he has played at the hole being played and any small object, such as a coin or a tee, when used to mark the position of a ball or the extent of an area in which a ball is to be dropped. Equipment includes a golf cart, whether or not motorized.

Note 1: A ball played at the hole being played is equipment when it has been lifted and not put back into play.

Note 2: When a golf cart is shared by two or more players, the cart and everything in it are deemed to be the equipment of one of the players sharing the cart.

If the cart is being moved by one of the players (or the partner of one of the players) sharing it, the cart and everything in it are deemed to be that player’s equipment . Otherwise, the cart and everything in it are deemed to be the equipment of the player sharing the cart whose ball (or whose partner’s ball) is involved.

The clubs that a person uses are, indeed, "equipment".  As a matter of fact, virtually EVERYTHING except the ball currently in play or a marker currently in use to mark a ball in play is "equipment".

Putters are indeed "equipment".  As such, the USGA reserves the right to change the rules about unusual use of equipment at any time.  They are not compelled to change the rules, so there's no contradiction when they allow unusual things like chippers, left-handed golfers, cross-handed putting, baseball-style grips, etc but then disallow things like belly putters.  The fact that they state explicitly that they "reserve the right" means that they will and do rule individually on each piece of unusual equipment and each unusual style.  They were very smart, in my opinion, in leaving flexibility in the rules so they can make determinations on everything based on THEIR vision of what impact that unusual use or unusual equipment would have on the game of golf.

I may have missed something here, but here's how I would write it:


"The following styles will be prohibited:

1. Anchoring/holding any part of the putter (or any other club) against any part of the body (chest, torso, belly, forearm, upper arm, chin, big toe, ear lobe, etc) in making a stroke except that the hand(s) may be used to grip the club.

2. Anchoring/holding any part of a hand which is simultaneously touching the club against any part of the body (except the wrist to which said hand is attached) in making a stroke."

They do have the right to change interpretations at any time and don't HAVE to give people grace periods to learn new methods, but I think they've been pretty accommodating in the past when it comes to banning styles/equipment.

- Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The following statement in the USGA rulebook precedes the rules themselves:  "The USGA, in conjunction with The R&A; in St. Andrews, Scotland, writes, interprets and maintains the Rules of Golf to guard the tradition and integrity of the game."

I think this is why so many speak of "tradition".  Again, my use of "usual" is because the specific rule that appears to address anchored putting styles (14-3) uses "unusual" and not "traditional".

- Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by dave67az

I think the emphasis that some people have placed on "traditional" has to do not with what is stated in the USGA rules, rather the purpose of the USGA in general to maintain the traditions of the game of golf.  My emphasis on the word "usual" was merely an attempt to explain that the USGA, as they've stated in the rules, doesn't think that SOME unusual styles or unusual equipment is good for the future of the game.

I will disagree with your interpretation of the rule (14-3) that I quoted, however.  You say that the rule addresses "non-club equipment like braces, rangefinders, whatnot" but this is not ALL it addresses.  You're focusing on the first two parts of the rule "Artificial devices and Unusual Equipment" and ignoring the last:  "Unusual Use of Equipment".  I'll quote it again for simplicity's sake.

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.

About that last bit:  "Unusual Use of Equipment".  This is not, in fact, unusual use of unusual equipment (a redundancy), rather it's the unusual use of any equipment.

So what's "equipment"?  I refer you to the Definitions section of the USGA rulebook, which defines Equipment in this way:

Equipment

“Equipment” is anything used, worn or carried by the player or anything carried for the player by his partner or either of their caddies, except any ball he has played at the hole being played and any small object, such as a coin or a tee, when used to mark the position of a ball or the extent of an area in which a ball is to be dropped. Equipment includes a golf cart, whether or not motorized.

Note 1: A ball played at the hole being played is equipment when it has been lifted and not put back into play.

Note 2: When a golf cart is shared by two or more players, the cart and everything in it are deemed to be the equipment of one of the players sharing the cart.

If the cart is being moved by one of the players (or the partner of one of the players) sharing it, the cart and everything in it are deemed to be that player’s equipment. Otherwise, the cart and everything in it are deemed to be the equipment of the player sharing the cart whose ball (or whose partner’s ball) is involved.

The clubs that a person uses are, indeed, "equipment".  As a matter of fact, virtually EVERYTHING except the ball currently in play or a marker currently in use to mark a ball in play is "equipment".

Putters are indeed "equipment".  As such, the USGA reserves the right to change the rules about unusual use of equipment at any time.  They are not compelled to change the rules, so there's no contradiction when they allow unusual things like chippers, left-handed golfers, cross-handed putting, baseball-style grips, etc but then disallow things like belly putters.  The fact that they state explicitly that they "reserve the right" means that they will and do rule individually on each piece of unusual equipment and each unusual style.  They were very smart, in my opinion, in leaving flexibility in the rules so they can make determinations on everything based on THEIR vision of what impact that unusual use or unusual equipment would have on the game of golf.

I may have missed something here, but here's how I would write it:

"The following styles will be prohibited:

1. Anchoring/holding any part of the putter (or any other club) against any part of the body (chest, torso, belly, forearm, upper arm, chin, big toe, ear lobe, etc) in making a stroke except that the hand(s) may be used to grip the club.

2. Anchoring/holding any part of a hand which is simultaneously touching the club against any part of the body (except the wrist to which said hand is attached) in making a stroke."

They do have the right to change interpretations at any time and don't HAVE to give people grace periods to learn new methods, but I think they've been pretty accommodating in the past when it comes to banning styles/equipment.

- Dave


OK! Nice. THIS is logical argument. Good points about 14.3(probably) My follow up question is if 14.3 defines equipment and reserves the right to regulate it where is the actual current regulation of unusual usage? In decisions?

Also there is a current section on method of stroke that forbids 'spooning' 'poking' and such. I think they're intending to change that section.

'Reserving the right' is probably redundant because we've already agreed they have the authority to do pretty much anything anyway,. At least to those of us without Karsten Solheim's capacity to hire lawyers.

I think you're still assigning the burden of proof to the wrong side. Shouldn't the people proposing a rule change have the obligation to show some positive reason for the change? Even in the most autocratic of organizations the powerful usually feel some compulsion to publicly claim that their decisions are for the common good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by broomhandle

OK! Nice. THIS is logical argument. Good points about 14.3(probably) My follow up question is if 14.3 defines equipment and reserves the right to regulate it where is the actual current regulation of unusual usage? In decisions?

Also there is a current section on method of stroke that forbids 'spooning' 'poking' and such. I think they're intending to change that section.

'Reserving the right' is probably redundant because we've already agreed they have the authority to do pretty much anything anyway,. At least to those of us without Karsten Solheim's capacity to hire lawyers.

I think you're still assigning the burden of proof to the wrong side. Shouldn't the people proposing a rule change have the obligation to show some positive reason for the change? Even in the most autocratic of organizations the powerful usually feel some compulsion to publicly claim that their decisions are for the common good.

The rule about spooning falls under 14-1:

14-1. Ball to be Fairly Struck At
The ball must be fairly struck at with the head of the club and must not be pushed, scraped or spooned.

I agree with the lack of need for "reserves the right", just as restaurants and private businesses have no need to post such notices in their stores (e.g. "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone").  I wonder if it's there just to discourage any frivolous lawsuits.

On the subject of burden of proof, I don't think it exists.  Burden of proof is something we have in the legal system because of the rights of the people.  Burden of proof is there to ensure that the rights of the people are not violated.  When it comes to USGA decisions, golfers in general have no rights (with the exception of the ability to appeal decisions in some cases), manufacturers have no rights, and golf course managers have no rights.  When the USGA makes a decision to ban a piece of equipment or style of play, what right has been violated?  The right to use a long putter?  If that's the claim, then what exactly established your right to use a long putter?  If there is no explicit establishment of a right to do something, then there is no burden of proof for the USGA because any action they take to ban an action or piece of equipment is justified simply by their claim that their decision is for the "good of the game" or to "reinforce and protect the traditions of golf".  Keep in mind that their previous interpretation that anchored putters were okay does not, then, constitute an indefinite right to do so because, as we said, they have the right to change those interpretations at any time.

As for decisions on these rules, the following are currently listed as new or revised decisions pertaining to Rules 14-1, 14-2 and 14-3.  As for a complete list of previous rulings, I have yet to find a list like that.  I'll keep looking:

Q. A player playing in the rain holds an umbrella over his head with one hand while holing a very short putt, gripping the putter with the other hand. Is this permissible?


A. Yes. Rule 14-2a prohibits a player, while making a stroke, from accepting protection from the elements from someone other than himself. However, it does not prohibit him from protecting himself. (Revised)

Q. A player positions his golf bag near the teeing ground for the purpose of blocking the sunlight from the position where he tees his ball. He then makes a stroke. Is he in breach of Rule 14-2?


A. Yes. As the player was not in contact with the golf bag, he accepted protection from the elements in breach of Rule 14-2a. This answer differs from that in Decision 14-2/2 as, in that case, the player was in contact with the umbrella.


While a player may not place an object or position a person for the purpose of blocking the sunlight from his ball, he may ask a person (e.g., a spectator) who is already in position not to move, so that a shadow remains over the ball, or to move, so that his shadow is not over the ball. (Revised)

Q. May a player’s caddie purposely stand between the player and the setting sun so that the sun’s glare is not in the player’s face while he is playing a stroke?


A. No. Such procedure is a breach of Rule 14-2a.(Revised)

Q. A radio-frequency identification chip has been embedded in a golf ball. When used with a special radio receiver, a player may find such a ball readily because the receiver emits a signal that grows louder as the person holding the receiver moves closer to the ball. Is the use of such a ball and receiver permissible?


A. No. Use of such a ball in conjunction with the receiver is a breach of Rule 14-3.


However, use of such a ball without the receiver is permissible, provided the ball conforms to the Rules, the embedded chip has no capability other than identifying the ball and its use is in accordance with any conditions of competition that may have been adopted (e.g., the List of Conforming Golf Balls Condition). (Revised)

Q. During a stipulated round, a player himself uses an electronic measuring device to obtain distance information. The Committee has not adopted a Local Rule allowing players to use devices to measure or gauge distance (see Note to Rule 14-3). What is the ruling?


A. The player is disqualified. The prohibition in Rule 14-3 against using an electronic device to obtain distance information extends to the player or a member of his side using such a device to obtain distance information. This prohibition in Rule 14-3 would also extend to a player who asks an outside agency to use an artificial device to obtain such distance information for him. However, the player would not be disqualified merely because a spectator or other outside agency provided such information to him without being requested to do so. Similarly, a player is not prohibited from obtaining distance information from scoreboards or from a referee (e.g., when using an artificial device to determine the order of play). (New)

Q. A player uses a device to listen to music, a radio broadcast or any other type of broadcast during a stipulated round. What is the ruling?


A. Under Rule 14-3a, a player may not use any artificial device or unusual equipment that “might assist him in making a stroke or in his play.” Listening to music or a broadcast while making a stroke or for a prolonged period might assist the player in his play, for example, by eliminating distractions or promoting a good tempo. Therefore, the use of an artificial device to listen to music or a broadcast, whether or not through headphones, while making a stroke or for a prolonged period of time during a stipulated round is a breach of Rule 14-3. However, it would not be a breach of Rule 14-3 for a player to listen to a device briefly, for example, to obtain the results of another sporting event or traffic information, while walking between the putting green of one hole and the teeing ground of the next hole.


A Committee will have to consider all available facts and circumstances in determining whether a player using an artificial device to listen to music or a broadcast has done so for a prolonged period such that the action might have assisted the player in his play.


There is no restriction on listening to music or other broadcasts while practicing (whether on the practice ground or on the golf course, and whether by oneself or while playing with others), although club rules and disciplinary codes could apply in such circumstances. (New)

- Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I hate to have three posts in a row but in deciding which section of the rules to amend in order to eliminate the anchored putting style, I believe the best place would be the same place THIS rule appears...

e. Standing Astride or on Line of Putt
The player must not make a stroke on the putting green from a stance astride, or with either foot touching, the line of putt or an extension of that line behind the ball.

and that is Rule 16. The Putting Green .

This would make perfect sense to me, since this rule only applies on the green and NOT anywhere else on the course.  It would only make sense that if you're going to make a rule about how a person may and may not putt the ball on the green, that the rule would appear under Rule 16 just as the rule banning "croquet-style" putting does.

- Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I've been using 'the ra/usga' very sloppily to mean the very few executives or committee members with real power to change things. The actual usga is a wide membership of thousands(millions?) I'm sure there is some sort of charter or constitution that establishes that the officials have responsibilities to represent the best interest of the membership as a whole and the members have rights to expect that. I expect the officials are elected.

Non-usga golfers have little reason to care what the usga rules are. eg. In my company golf league we had a written rule that improving the lie in the fairway with the clubhead was ok but putting your hand on the ball was not. Our handicaps were computed by the secretary with his own primitive algorithm.

The usga officials obligation to the membership surely includes a decent explanation of why rule changes are good for 'the game'/the membership.

This reminds me that if I want to b*tch I probably should join.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by dave67az

I swear I haven't written this much since I tried to explain the Air Force Medical Evaluation Board and disability determination process to my last unit.  :-)


USAF Dover AFB 78-82 myself. Weirdest week of my life was on 'admin hold' or whatever they called it between graduating basic and actually getting shipped out of Lackland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by broomhandle

I've been using 'the ra/usga' very sloppily to mean the very few executives or committee members with real power to change things. The actual usga is a wide membership of thousands(millions?) I'm sure there is some sort of charter or constitution that establishes that the officials have responsibilities to represent the best interest of the membership as a whole and the members have rights to expect that. I expect the officials are elected.

Non-usga golfers have little reason to care what the usga rules are. eg. In my company golf league we had a written rule that improving the lie in the fairway with the clubhead was ok but putting your hand on the ball was not. Our handicaps were computed by the secretary with his own primitive algorithm.

The usga officials obligation to the membership surely includes a decent explanation of why rule changes are good for 'the game'/the membership.

This reminds me that if I want to b*tch I probably should join.

I can't find the USGA Constitution anywhere, but I do know the following:

1.  The following is the Foreward to the Rules of Golf:

This book contains the Rules of Golf, which will be effective worldwide from January 1, 2012. It represents the culmination of four years work by the United States Golf Association (USGA) and R&A; Rules Limited, following consultation with other golfing bodies throughout the world. While it is considered important that the Rules be faithful to their historical principles, they must be clear, comprehensive and relevant to today’s game, and the penalties must be appropriate. The Rules need regular review to ensure these goals are met. This set of Rules is the latest stage of this evolution. The principal changes are summarized on pages 6 and 7. Both the USGA and R&A; Rules Limited wish to preserve the integrity of golf at all levels and to stress the importance of respect for and adherence to the Rules.

2.  There is a Rules Committee in each of the USGA and R&A.;  The USGA Rules Committee Chairman listed in the book is Glen D. Nager and for the R&A; Rules Committee it's Alan W.J. Holmes.  Nager was then elected to be the current President of the USGA.

3.  The following statement concerning rules changes appears on the USGA website: The Rules are reviewed jointly by the USGA and The R&A; Rules Limited. Any proposed change must be agreed by both bodies before it can be adopted. The Rules of Golf are revised on a four-year cycle. The USGA is the governing body of golf in the United States and Mexico, while The R&A; is the governing body in all other parts of the world.

4.  Here's an article about Nager's election to President this past February: http://www.usga.org/news/2012/February/USGA-Elects-Glen-Nager-As-62nd-President/ .  I should note here that Nager is apparenlty a highly-qualified lawyer who graduated from Stanford, has argued 13 cases before the Supreme Court, and also served as a clerk to former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.  I say this only to make the point that I find it highly unlikely during his tenure that he would make any decisions which would expose the USGA to very many lawsuits.

5.  There are 15 members of the executive committee.  Not sure about the Rules Committee

From these three facts we can assume that both the USGA and R&A; committees must cooperate in establishing the rules.  If either disagrees about a rule, it would appear that the rule would be abandoned.

- Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This might answer a lot of your questions concerning the operation of the organization.

It's their 2011 annual report.

http://www.usga-digital.com/usga/20120125?sub_id=JggDrvBjPGjv#pg1

- Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by broomhandle

USAF Dover AFB 78-82 myself. Weirdest week of my life was on 'admin hold' or whatever they called it between graduating basic and actually getting shipped out of Lackland.

I hear ya.  If you were at Dover I'm assuming you either worked on the big transports or were a loadmaster?

- Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Nice research work. I've been on a lot of forums on a lot of subjects and it's amazingly rare to see somebody who actually wants to learn more about a contentious issue rather than just state their own opinion.

btw - your proposed rule was very similar to mine from many pages back. Mine was from the perspective of the best I could hope for rather than what I'd most like to see, though.

Quote:
I hear ya.  If you were at Dover I'm assuming you either worked on the big transports or were a loadmaster?

Nah, I was REMF to the nth degree. I worked on the AC and Refr that supported those guys.

Darn close to being a civilian in fatigues most of the time. Technically I was on a rapid response team for runway repair, decon and such but we had like 2 exercises and no deployments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by broomhandle

Nice research work. I've been on a lot of forums on a lot of subjects and it's amazingly rare to see somebody who actually wants to learn more about a contentious issue rather than just state their own opinion.

btw - your proposed rule was very similar to mine from many pages back. Mine was from the perspective of the best I could hope for rather than what I'd most like to see, though.


Thanks!  When someone asks me a question and I don't know the answer, I nearly always (as long as I'm halfway interested in the subject) feel compelled to look it up not just for their benefit but for my own.  I actually have problems relating to people who DON'T want to learn.  But I know we're all different, so I TRY to get along.  :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Ok, now how about plans for enforcement?

Assume a 'club nor hand can touch body' rule.

I guess this would be like most rules and it would be supposed that I would call a penalty on myself if I violated it.

If an official saw me in violation w/o calling it on myself I'd be penalized and/or dq-ed.

Technically a 1mm gap between hand and body would be legal.

Who judges that tiny margin on every putt?

Would it be my responsibility to show clear compliance or an officials responsibility to show clear violation?

Since the spirit of the change is to ban anchoring an unanchored stroke that incidentally brushes the body at some one point should still be legal, right?

I'm happy putting with my left thumb 1-2" from my chest.

I'm well within the spirit of the new rule and with a tight t-shirt clearly within the letter

Even 1 baggy shirt can touch my left hand though.

With the oversize windbreaker I like to wear it would be extremely difficult to avoid the jacket obscuring the hand-chest gap completely.

I'm honestly not trying to be silly but it seems like I could end up in a position of having to golf in snug clothes.(only if I played a usga event, of course)

A fat person would have to keep his hand further from the center of his body than a skinny person. Discrimination :)

Is this worth it for the alleged benefit?

One thing I'd bet all I have will happen is that when an anchor ban goes in and I'm using an unanchored broomhandle some people are going to come up to me and tell me I should stop using that putter because it was banned. Probably somebody will do it between the announcement and the effective date! I'll enjoy the arguments but that situation will probably really bother some long-putter users.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by broomhandle

Ok, now how about plans for enforcement?

Assume a 'club nor hand can touch body' rule.

I guess this would be like most rules and it would be supposed that I would call a penalty on myself if I violated it.

If an official saw me in violation w/o calling it on myself I'd be penalized and/or dq-ed.

Technically a 1mm gap between hand and body would be legal.

Who judges that tiny margin on every putt?

Would it be my responsibility to show clear compliance or an officials responsibility to show clear violation?

Since the spirit of the change is to ban anchoring an unanchored stroke that incidentally brushes the body at some one point should still be legal, right?

I'm happy putting with my left thumb 1-2" from my chest.

I'm well within the spirit of the new rule and with a tight t-shirt clearly within the letter

Even 1 baggy shirt can touch my left hand though.

With the oversize windbreaker I like to wear it would be extremely difficult to avoid the jacket obscuring the hand-chest gap completely.

I'm honestly not trying to be silly but it seems like I could end up in a position of having to golf in snug clothes.(only if I played a usga event, of course)

A fat person would have to keep his hand further from the center of his body than a skinny person. Discrimination :)

Is this worth it for the alleged benefit?

One thing I'd bet all I have will happen is that when an anchor ban goes in and I'm using an unanchored broomhandle some people are going to come up to me and tell me I should stop using that putter because it was banned. Probably somebody will do it between the announcement and the effective date! I'll enjoy the arguments but that situation will probably really bother some long-putter users.

Interesting.  I automatically assumed that since the reason for using 'broom handles' and 'belly putters' was to anchor it against your body in some way, that once the ban went into effect that you all would just start using short putters.  You're saying that you still think you would putt better holding a long putter unanchored in the air, than a short putter conventionally?

Or are you just being devils advocate to try and make a point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 4076 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-15%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope.
  • Posts

    • If it's not broken don't fix it. If you want to add grooves to it just because of looks that's your choice of course. Grooves are cut into putter faces to reduce skid, the roll faced putter is designed to do the same thing. I'm no expert but it seems counter productive to add grooves to the roll face. Maybe you can have it sand-blasted or something to clean up the face. Take a look at Tigers putter, its beat to hell but he still uses it.     
    • I get trying to limit relief to the fairway, but how many roots do you typically find in the fairway? Our local rule allows for relief from roots & rocks anywhere on the course (that is in play). My home course has quite a few 100 year old oaks that separate the fairways. Lift and move the ball no closer to the hole. None of us want to damage clubs.
    • Hello, I've been playing a Teardrop td17 F.C. putter for many years and love it. It still putts and feels as good or  better than any of the new putters I've tried and it's in excellent condition except the face has dings in it ever since I bought it used that kind of bother me. I was just wondering if it's possible to have some really shallow horizontal grooves milled into the face on a "roll face" putter. I think I would rather spend some money on it instead of trying to get used to a new putter.  Thanks
    • I agree with @klineka & @DaveP043 above.  When a new member first joins the club they cold be told that they are not eligible for tournaments until they have an established HCP.  As you said, it only takes a few rounds.  If they do not to post HCP that was their choice and choices have consequences.  If playing in the tournament is important to them then they should step up and establish an HCP.  Maybe they miss the 1st tournament, is that a real big deal?  And if it is a "Big Deal" to them then they had the opportunity to establish the HCP. As for not knowing how to report for HCP I assume your club has a pro and they should be able to assist in getting the scores reported and I suspect out of state courses may also have staff that can assist if asked.
    • Wordle 1,013 2/6 🟨⬜⬜🟨🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 Thought I was gonna be a big shot today...  🙂    Nice Job!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...