Tiger Wants to Ban the Long Putter

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Just because people like Tiger Woods as a golfer doesn't mean they don't have their own opinion on the use of long putters.  You Tiger haters give him way too much credit for influencing public opinion on this topic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtsalmela80

My guess is people would change their minds to go along with Tiger. Maybe not all, but a lot.

There's no need to paint every person as a hater for thinking fans of certain celebrities tend to share their opinions on their pet causes, and that if the celebrity had a change of heart, more than a few fans would experience the same change of heart. It's a fact. We see it every day.

[mtsalmela80]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Just because people like Tiger Woods as a golfer doesn't mean they don't have their own opinion on the use of long putters.  You Tiger haters give him way too much credit for influencing public opinion on this topic.

Sadly the only to prove either of our viewpoints is to have tiger come out in support of belly putters, until then its all speculation. That doesnt detract from my original point, that no one can put up a good reason to ban them.  They are not a statistical advantage, so whats the purpose of the ban other than "I dont like em"?

[Texian]

Originally Posted by bwdial

That is still anchored.  Just because the hand wraps around the top of the putter and prevents the club from making contact with the body doesn't mean that the club is any less anchored.

In regard to banning them, I agree they should be banned in competition.

I now hold my top hand in contact with my chest. That's your definition of "anchor."

I can just as easily hold my top hand 1/8 inch from my chest, which I would not prefer but which I would do if prohibited from "anchoring," and you tell me how you're going to enforce that rule.

"Oops, a wind gust just came up and caused my shirt to brush my hand. Two stroke penalty on me."

This is all a bunch of BS caused by someone who has lost his game on the greens and doesn't like getting beat by people like Keegan Bradley who use long putters.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

It sounds as if you've seen no good reasons to support not banning them?

Correct!

Kidding.  The bold portion was tongue-in-cheek for effect.  I (think) I've stated my reasons why I think they should be banned in this thread before, and/or elsewhere.  I've also posted what I think are valid reason(s) on why it would be tough to ban them now.  Ultimately, the undue burden this would put on pro golfers who have been using them for years now is outweighed, for me, by the fundamental principle of the putter swing that is being circumvented without a rule.  It seems most of the reasons why people think they shouldn't be banned fall into one of 3 categories:

1) Too many folks have been using them for a while now and/or historical .

2) It has no provable advantage.

3) It would place an undue burden on people with health/medical problems.

Two of those reasons are using negative-viewpoint or passive logos.  Meaning, the logic is based on "it hasn't" been proven or "it hasn't" been done in the past.  That doesn't really present a strong argument, it just stats a (quasi)-fact.

I also find that the #2 reason I listed seems the most common, and I have to say that IMO it's also the most dubious.  There is no scientific study proving one way or the other at this point.  Second, logically it follows that if it has no provable advantage, then it also has no provable disadvantage, and thus banning it wouldn't harm the game.  This also ignores that at least a significant portion of folks who want it banned are doing so based on a principle, and not based on evidentiary support of an advantage.

In summary, they should have done it years ago based on the principle that a putter swing should be controlled by the hands--without anchoring--and swung like the pendulum.  Just because they dropped the ball on this for so long doesn't mean they should continually drop the ball on it.

Brandon

[mtsalmela80]

As usual, the best reason for banning them is "you're not supposed to putt like that!". Are you kidding me that a ban wouldn't hurt anyone? How about the large group of pros who have putted like this for a long time. Now they are going to have to change, but everyone else stays the same. This ban would be extremely biased toward the men and women who have adapted to this technique.

As for myself, I could probably switch back and forth between a belly and a regular putter with no change in stats, but a pro using the belly putter would have a different take. Sorry Tiger, why don't you shut your mouth when it comes to the belly putter and put all that hot air back into your practice routine and maybe you'll win one this year.

Originally Posted by bplewis24

In summary, they should have done it years ago based on the principle that a putter swing should be controlled by the hands--without anchoring--and swung like the pendulum.  Just because they dropped the ball on this for so long doesn't mean they should continually drop the ball on it.

Brandon

[TourSpoon]

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.

Does anyone see my quote above as a valid point? I think that economics have to factor into the decision at some point.

[Shorty]

I think that the reason most people want a ban is because, if they were honest with themselves, they know that a game which is considered uncool by non golfers appears to be even less cool with them all over the place. They look so unathletic.

Imagine taking someone out and intriducing him to the game and then seeing fit young men with these silly looking things. Seriously uncool.

Makes us all look bad.

When I see someone with a long putter, all I see is someone who must have had serious putting "issues", not someone with an advantage.

[newtogolf]

There must be some advantage otherwise people who had the yips or couldn't putt consistently with regular length putters wouldn't have switched and stuck with them

Originally Posted by mtsalmela80

Sadly the only to prove either of our viewpoints is to have tiger come out in support of belly putters, until then its all speculation. That doesnt detract from my original point, that no one can put up a good reason to ban them.  They are not a statistical advantage, so whats the purpose of the ban other than "I dont like em"?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by mtsalmela80

I have not seen one good reason for any of you to support the ban. Even the head admin can only come up with "its not the way a golf club is meant to be swung"

You're projecting your own opinion as if it's the absolute determining factor. To many, "a golf club is not meant to be swung that way" is a perfectly legitimate reason, just as it's illegal to hit a golf ball with the butt end of the club, or standing astride the line of your putt, etc.

I don't really care if you don't think it's a good reason. I do. Where's that get us? Absolutely nowhere.

Originally Posted by mtsalmela80

there is no correlation between using a belly putter and more wins, I wonder if most of you would secretly change your mind if Tiger came out tomorrow and declared his support for belly putters. I would do almost anything to have Tiger starting using a belly putter next time he is playing, just to see where this thread goes from there.

Uhm, my mind wouldn't change in the least bit, and you absolutely give people too much credit. This discussion has been going on for a HELL of a lot longer than Tiger's opinions have been made public knowledge.

And people who had the yips were able to stay in the game longer. So what if there's no "correlation" between wins and a belly putter? What if every guy with a belly putter who had the yips with a short putter would attribute their wins to the belly putter, and in fact, their very ability to even stay on Tour. Why should we protect guys who have the yips?

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Just because people like Tiger Woods as a golfer doesn't mean they don't have their own opinion on the use of long putters.  You Tiger haters give him way too much credit for influencing public opinion on this topic.

I think so too.

Originally Posted by mtsalmela80

Sadly the only to prove either of our viewpoints is to have tiger come out in support of belly putters, until then its all speculation. That doesnt detract from my original point, that no one can put up a good reason to ban them.  They are not a statistical advantage, so whats the purpose of the ban other than "I dont like em"?

1. It's not speculation. People supported banning them before Tiger said anything about them. You're wrong.

2. Your original "point" is not a point at all, it's simply your opinion that nobody's listed a good reason. To others, they have perfectly good reasons.

3. Answered just above. To the guy who can't putt with a non-anchored putter, they are an advantage. If turning lousy putters into average putters is all a belly putter does, then it's definitely an advantage for those golfers. I haven't seen anyone yet claim that they're a blanket advantage, though.

[Merfal]

It takes an average of ten years/10,000 of dedicated practice to be world class at something. The best putters on tour with normal putters likely have this mass of hours built up. What about the best long putter players on tour; how long have they been practicing with their long putter? If they are able to put in much less time but be equal in putting ability compared to traditional putters I would call that an advantage. How efficient is someone with 10,000 hours of long putter practice going to be?

[LuciusWooding]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

There must be some advantage otherwise people who had the yips or couldn't putt consistently with regular length putters wouldn't have switched and stuck with them

There must not be an advantage or else people who use regular putters would have switched to long putters and stayed with them because they were better. It's a preference thing, just like choosing a mallet vs blade putter or the makeup of your set. The yips aren't a technique thing, they're a mental thing. The only advantages it gives are confidence and comfort; both of which are subjective. The main arguments against it are that it goes against the spirit of the rules, a subjective point, and it doesn't look good, an even more subjective point.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Merfal

It takes an average of ten years/10,000 of dedicated practice to be world class at something. The best putters on tour with normal putters likely have this mass of hours built up. What about the best long putter players on tour; how long have they been practicing with their long putter? If they are able to put in much less time but be equal in putting ability compared to traditional putters I would call that an advantage. How efficient is someone with 10,000 hours of long putter practice going to be?

Look, the 10,000 hours thing doesn't even apply to golfers as a whole. Trying to apply it to PUTTING alone is just silly. C'mon now. Seriously, I switched my 3-wood, I need 10,000 hours of practice with it to get good with it? :-P

[newtogolf]

It may help confidence and comfort but really what it gives them is an anchor point to their body to control the shakes.

Originally Posted by LuciusWooding

There must not be an advantage or else people who use regular putters would have switched to long putters and stayed with them because they were better. It's a preference thing, just like choosing a mallet vs blade putter or the makeup of your set. The yips aren't a technique thing, they're a mental thing. The only advantages it gives are confidence and comfort; both of which are subjective. The main arguments against it are that it goes against the spirit of the rules, a subjective point, and it doesn't look good, an even more subjective point.

[k-troop]

The 10,000 hour rule is interesting, but I don't think it would apply to any specific club choice.  Basically, Malcolm Gladwell is saying that among the world's most elite athletes (Woods, Jordan, etc), programmers (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs), musicians (the Beatles), etc., they all have innate talent and have spent at least 10,000 hours honing their specific skill.

I think any PGA Tour Pro who started out as a junior golfer, worked their way through college, Nationwide Tour, etc., will have met or come close to that benchmark.  However, Bill Gates didn't have to log an additional 10,000 hours to become proficient at C++ when BASIC phased out, and then another 10,000 hours for Java.  Likewise, Freddy Couples didn't need 10,000 hours with the belly putter in order to make the transition.

I love it how Erik systematically addressed every comment on this page, but completely ignored Shorty's nonsense.

[Merfal]

The point I'm making is that a long putter is an advantage if it takes less practice to become equally efficient as a person who has put in more practice with a traditional putter. And maybe it would take you that long to get good with a new 3 wood if it was a different design and called for a much different swing :)

Originally Posted by iacas

Look, the 10,000 hours thing doesn't even apply to golfers as a whole. Trying to apply it to PUTTING alone is just silly. C'mon now. Seriously, I switched my 3-wood, I need 10,000 hours of practice with it to get good with it? :-P

[zipazoid]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texian

What's the definition of "anchor"?

Does that mean "putter touching body"?

What if the hand holding the putter is touching the body, but the putter is not?

Here's what I offered earlier in this thread as proposed wording of the rule -

Quote:

The club or hands cannot touch the body above the elbows at address.

So that would cover either the club or hands anchoring the club.

[Merfal]

And 10,000 hours of practice to be world class, not just good.

Originally Posted by iacas

Look, the 10,000 hours thing doesn't even apply to golfers as a whole. Trying to apply it to PUTTING alone is just silly. C'mon now. Seriously, I switched my 3-wood, I need 10,000 hours of practice with it to get good with it? :-P

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by mtsalmela80

Sorry Tiger, why don't you shut your mouth when it comes to the belly putter and put all that hot air back into your practice routine and maybe you'll win one this year.

Well, you definitely proved Sean right...you're no Tiger-hater.

Brandon