Tiger Wants to Ban the Long Putter

[TourSpoon]

Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer

Yes, they should listem to player's opinions. But, it shouldn't be driven by (what appears to be) a few vocal high profiled player(s). They listened to players opinions years ago, when this first came up. They decided to allow it. If they want to listen to opinions, then take a poll of all USGA golfers or all PGA pros, or even the top 500 pros and see what the real public opinion is.

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I agree with this. It's been well established in several threads that 1.) whatever happens on the PGA Tour will be consistent with the rules for all players (the R&A; and USGA tend to work together somewhat) so who cares what the current top players think? and 2.) whatever happens in other sports is largely irrelevant so how and when they approach rules changes is also irrelevant.

They also need to get the manufacturers on board. Players aren't the only ones who stand to lose on this deal. The groove ruling was accepted by the club companies because it was used to spike sales of square grooves and then open a market of conforming products that were different. The ban of anchoring would stifle market demand for long putters at the time when they can't keep them on the shelves. A ban would not open a new market as most everyone has traditional putters.

The more I think of the PGA Tour, the more I think that they should just use the players as a barometer. To use the management would be a mistake as there is no real backbone as we approach the 21st anniversary of when the last Tour player was penalized a stroke for slow play.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer

Actually, that's my primary point.  The USGA should not be listening to Tiger for advice about it.  Any rule change should never be driven by any one player.

It's not. The fact that Tiger's been talking about it for years with Peter Dawson says as much. I'm not sure if you understood the timing of what I said, but Tiger was only asked the question because the USGA announced - again prior to Tiger being asked the question - that they were discussing the possibilities.

They're not listening to just Tiger. The USGA independently decided to discuss it, and the R&A; has basically been ignoring Tiger for years. :)

Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer

They missed their window, it's a part of the game now, whether they like it or not.  And yes, it's still a swing.

In your opinion. Others disagree. I also disagree that they missed their window. There's no statute of limitations and letting something viewed as "wrong" to continue is just as wrong.

Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer

Btw - have you ever seen this guy, I guess he would not be allowed to play in any USGA events, since he's 'anchoring' the club and swinging it in a non-traditional manner.

Uhm, he doesn't play in them now. Nor would he make a great wide receiver in the NFL. Sorry, but that guy isn't playing "golf" under the Rules.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer

But, it shouldn't be driven by (what appears to be) a few vocal high profiled player(s).

Why do you think any possible rules changes are being driven by a few high profile players?

Brandon

[jhwmusic]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I was being both serious (he has won 100% of the majors he's played in... cuz he won his first and it was the last one played) and silly (it's a goofy "point," someone being 1 for 1 in majors). It's not sarcasm and I didn't claim such. Beachcomber seemed to get it. Appropriately, he chuckled.

Getting back to the actual topic:

I personally don't have an issue with holding the putter against your wrist, though I think if you're going to ban "anchoring" altogether why not just say that no part of the putter can held in contact with any part of the body above the wrists. Some variation of "held in contact with" will protect people who grip down on their putters to hit the ball out from under a tree and who have the butt end of the putter hit their forearm on the follow-through or something, as well as people tapping in one-handed with the butt end of the club resting against or bumping into their forearm.

Oh jesus! It was a joke! I know you were making an attempt at humor! I was just making a little joke because you had called me out in another thread about me sarcastically saying that that the average tour pro doesn't way over 150 lbs. I told the guy that I was conversing with that I was being slightly sarcastic about the 150lbs, and he understood. But you decided to chime in and say that I was just claiming sarcasm because someone called me on my 150 lbs claim. Like I really think the average golfer is 150 lbs...that is almost Jokey size. nevermind! I do agree with your no contact above the wrists comment though.

[TheGeekGolfer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

It's not. The fact that Tiger's been talking about it for years with Peter Dawson says as much. I'm not sure if you understood the timing of what I said, but Tiger was only asked the question because the USGA announced - again prior to Tiger being asked the question - that they were discussing the possibilities.

They're not listening to just Tiger. The USGA independently decided to discuss it, and the R&A; has basically been ignoring Tiger for years. :)

In your opinion. Others disagree. I also disagree that they missed their window. There's no statute of limitations and letting something viewed as "wrong" to continue is just as wrong.

Yep...that's my opinion and the opinion of alot of other people on the PGA tour and amateur golfers.  It's also viewed as 'wrong' by quite a few people.  How many are on either side, I don't know where the majority lies.  Fact is, from what I've seen, neither does the USGA or R&A.;

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

Uhm, he doesn't play in them now. Nor would he make a great wide receiver in the NFL. Sorry, but that guy isn't playing "golf" under the Rules.

Please tell me how "that guy" (Butch Lumpkin) isn't 'playing golf' under the rules.  Oh, and we're not talking about the NFL, but if we were, they don't care how you catch the ball, just that you catch it (see Superbowl XLII and David Tyree's helmet catch)

According to his website , he carries a 9 Hdcp,

Quote:

It doesn’t stop Butch from competing however, as he carries a 9 handicap and has recorded a hole-in-one in golf.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer

Please tell me how "that guy" (Butch Lumpkin) isn't 'playing golf' under the rules.  Oh, and we're not talking about the NFL, but if we were, they don't care how you catch the ball, just that you catch it (see Superbowl XLII and David Tyree's helmet catch)

Kickers can't pick the ball up and throw it through the uprights. That's "form" and "how things are done." The NFL had rules for years on drop-kicking the ball, too. The NFL mandates HOW you can block, how you can tackle, etc. as well. I could go on. I won't. "How" things are done are mandated in other sports, and they're mandated in golf, too.

I was wrong about Butch. I confused him with another armless golfer I've seen in some videos. The one I'm thinking of uses clips to hold the club to his chest or something like that. In fast forwarding through the Butch Lumpkin video he seems to be playing under the Rules.

[TheGeekGolfer]

Originally Posted by iacas

Kickers can't pick the ball up and throw it through the uprights. That's "form" and "how things are done." The NFL had rules for years on drop-kicking the ball, too. The NFL mandates HOW you can block, how you can tackle, etc. as well. I could go on. I won't. "How" things are done are mandated in other sports, and they're mandated in golf, too.

I was wrong about Butch. I confused him with another armless golfer I've seen in some videos. The one I'm thinking of uses clips to hold the club to his chest or something like that. In fast forwarding through the Butch Lumpkin video he seems to be playing under the Rules.

Really Eric, come on.  In no way did I imply or am I debating that there shouldn't be rules that must govern "form" and other aspects of the game.  I understand the NFL, golf, and any other sport has rules, I'm not saying that they don't.  It was an off-topic comment that you made and I was just pointing that out.  Hence the little emoticon.  Of course there are rules on "how" things are done, otherwise it wouldn't be a game/sport and there would be no point in any competition at all.  I just don't agree that this rule needs to be changed, I think it's fine the way it is.

Oh, and btw - the drop-kick is still allowed in the NFL (slight modification made in 1998), Drew Brees attempted one in the last pro bowl.  But please don't respond to that in this post, as that is waaay off-topic.

Originally Posted by iacas

I was wrong about Butch. I confused him with another armless golfer I've seen in some videos. The one I'm thinking of uses clips to hold the club to his chest or something like that. In fast forwarding through the Butch Lumpkin video he seems to be playing under the Rules.

No problem.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer

Really Eric, come on. In no way did I imply or am I debating that there shouldn't be rules that must govern "form" and other aspects of the game.

I think it's very much on topic, as "anchoring" is a matter of "form" and "how." Rules which govern form and "how" exist in every sport I can think of.

[bplewis24]

Not sure if this is still relevant or ever was, but there also are rules governing how a ball is caught in football.  For example, there are those who interpreted this famous catch as illegal:

[TheGeekGolfer]

Originally Posted by iacas

I think it's very much on topic, as "anchoring" is a matter of "form" and "how." Rules which govern form and "how" exist in every sport I can think of.

Once again...I don't know what point you are trying to make.  You went off-topic with an off-the-cuff comment that Butch Lumpkin wouldn't make a very good NFL receiver.  Which has nothing to do with his golfing ability or the debate on the rules, since it's not really a relevant rules comparison.  I really don't care if you went off-topic, I was just being a bit sarcastic in my reply.  You are debating a point that is obvious to anyone that has ever played a sport or game, rules exist and they govern how the game/sport is played.  I never said anything to the contrary.

[TheGeekGolfer]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Not sure if this is still relevant or ever was, but there also are rules governing how a ball is caught in football.  For example, there are those who interpreted this famous catch as illegal: (see video above)

That was interesting, here's the wikipedia article on it .  It's known as the "Flea Kicker" play.  The controversy is that even though an intentional kick is 'illegal' in football by anyone other than the punter or kicker, it is legal to use any part of your body (including the feet) to attempt to catch a pass.  Sounds like football might need to clarify some rules.  However, this doesn't really apply to the rule(s) in golf on putters as they are well defined and nobody is breaking any by using a long putter.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer

Once again...I don't know what point you are trying to make.

I'm sorry you're having trouble understanding. The point is very simple: every sport I can think of governs the "how." Eliminating anchoring the putter would simply be another example of that.

Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer

However, this doesn't really apply to the rule(s) in golf on putters as they are well defined and nobody is breaking any by using a long putter.

I think everyone is aware of the fact that nobody is breaking the rules as they exist now. The debate is whether the rules should continue to exist as they are now or be changed to further define the "how" nature of the act of putting.

[TheGeekGolfer]

Originally Posted by iacas

I'm sorry you're having trouble understanding. The point is very simple: every sport I can think of governs the "how." Eliminating anchoring the putter would simply be another example of that.

I understand, but apparently, you don't.  You are debating a point that is commonly understood, please stop.  No one is arguing that every sport has rules that can govern "how" a game is played.  And yes, eliminating anchoring of the putter would be an example of that. They already have defined "how" a stroke is made and don't allow pushing and scraping.  They also have gone to  great lengths to define the 10* angle of the shaft and the design of the putter.  They could attempt to make a rule that you have to putt standing on one foot.  It would be another example of governing the "how" a stroke is made.  Big deal, so what... I still don't agree with it.

Originally Posted by iacas

I think everyone is aware of the fact that nobody is breaking the rules as they exist now. The debate is whether the rules should continue to exist as they are now or be changed to further define the "how" nature of the act of putting.

And once again, you miss the point entirely.  I think the rules defining the "how" nature of the act of putting is fine the way it is.  The point I made was that the post regarding the "Flea Kicker" was irrelevant, because it was more about confusion with the rules (which in golf, there is none, the rules are clearly defined), not on changing it or debating the "form" of catching the ball.

[Kieran123]

This reminds me of the underarm incident in cricket and how you can bowl a ball.

No  one said you couldn't do it - but it was a matter of common sense and gamesmanship

[TheGeekGolfer]

Originally Posted by Kieran123

This reminds me of the underarm incident in cricket and how you can bowl a ball.

No  one said you couldn't do it - but it was a matter of common sense and gamesmanship

I love cricket, I think it's a cool sport.  But, if I understand this correctly, this rule was specifically left out of this tournament.  If it was a matter of common sense, then why did they leave it out when they knew it could come to this?  My guess, is that because the bowler could just have easily thrown the ball very softly overhand and accomplished the same thing, the rule doesn't make sense.  Also, it's my understanding that Cricket started with bowlers throwing underhand, so, this group of tournament rules officials felt it would be against the spirit and history of the game to now ban it.

This actually is a good point in favor of NOT banning it (long putter or "anchoring").  It has historically been a part of the game.  The USGA knew someone would eventually win one or more high profile tournaments with a long putter.  If they thought it violated any current rule or sportsmanship of the game, then they had ample time to change the rules BEFORE anyone won with it or it became more widely adopted.  IMO - the fact that they did nothing and that it has become more widely adopted is more standing for leaving it in the rules than banning the practice of "anchoring" or the limiting the length of the putter.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer

I think the rules defining the "how" nature of the act of putting is fine the way it is.

Point-missing aside (we'll simply go around in circles there), this boils down to the fact that I disagree with the above. I'm not fine with it.

But duh. :)

[TheGeekGolfer]

Originally Posted by iacas

Point-missing aside (we'll simply go around in circles there), this boils down to the fact that I disagree with the above. I'm not fine with it.

But duh. :)

Clearly understood by your previous posts.

[brocks]

This actually is a good point in favor of NOT banning it (long putter or "anchoring"). It has historically been a part of the game.

I think you guys are trying to apply logic where it doesn't really fit. "Historically part of the game" doesn't carry all that much weight. Stymies were historically part of the game for over two hundred years, and many events were won or lost because of them, but they got rid of them anyway. The fact is that this is just a judgment call about the spirit of the game. Some people feel that the club should be swung, and that anchoring is not a proper swing. If enough people on the rules committee feel that way, they will add a rule to make that explicit; if not, they won't. Everybody, including the people on the committee, will feel that they have logical and historical arguments to justify their decision, no matter what it is, but it really just comes down to their opinion about what a proper swing is. You might agree with Phil that it's unfair to guys who have practiced for years with the long putter, but it won't be the first time that golfers got the shaft. What if you had spent hours every day for years, learning to beat a stymie? What if you had spent hours every day for years, learning to pop a ball out of a plugged lie on a green (you weren't allowed to lift and clean your ball on the green until 1960)? A lot of guys did just that, and with a stroke of a pen all those hours became wasted. It's too bad they waited so long, but I predict that they will add a rule that defines a proper swing. Not just to ban anchoring, but to try to close other loopholes that might generate other non-traditional techniques.