Tiger Wants to Ban the Long Putter

[ApocG10]

Originally Posted by iacas

Your handicap is listed as a 12.2. You're playing high-level amateur events that require that you get conforming wedges before 2024? Why did you throw away your driver? And if the USGA/R&A; change the belly putter rule, the pros will probably have three three more years to find a new putter, and YOU will probably have 7+ years.

And people, c'mon: very few people are arguing that it is an "advantage." Stop saying "it's not an advantage so I win the argument."

The bolded is exactly what I was going to point out. There was no reason for him to get new wedges, his are good for years to come. And there was no rule made that caused drivers to be illegal, so im guessing throwing it out was his own choice.

On top of that.... "Justifying it to the wife"... Wow... I don't know what kind of wives some people have, but its time to grow a set and stop letting the wife make the rules.

[broomhandle]

Per the quotes from r&a; and usga they're most likely going to change the 2016 edition of the rules of golf concerning what is a legal stroke.

No pro/amateur split or delay.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by broomhandle

Per the quotes from r&a; and usga they're most likely going to change the 2016 edition of the rules of golf concerning what is a legal stroke.

No pro/amateur split or delay.

I think you're right, but if they do, it'll still be three years away.

[luggage]

Tiger needs to concern himself about his own putting.  I don't know how many log putter golfers have actually beaten the shorter putter folks.  Anyone have the stats?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by luggage

Tiger needs to concern himself about his own putting.  I don't know how many log putter golfers have actually beaten the shorter putter folks.  Anyone have the stats?

That's still not the point many (most) people are making about banning them, but that they're winning and have become more popular is part of the reason or impetus for this to be discussed, no doubt.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by luggage

Tiger needs to concern himself about his own putting.  I don't know how many log putter golfers have actually beaten the shorter putter folks.  Anyone have the stats?

This thread is totally misnomeric.

Newcomers to the site are responding as if Tiger is worrying about others instead of himself.

I am pretty sure he cares little about the issue.

[Jimmy3putts]

Oh Shorty, get your facts right if you are going to be all arsey. The last 4 are - McIlroy (short), Simpson (long), Els (Long), Watson (Short). That's 50% Mr Science. My information tells me that several drivers (Including my old Callaway driver) have been illegal for a while now. Now look at Garrigus and his stats over the last couple of years. Long isn't an advantage, just a preference.

[jamo]

Oh Shorty, get your facts right if you are going to be all arsey. The last 4 are - McIlroy (short), Simpson (long), Els (Long), Watson (Short). That's 50% Mr Science.

Or, if you go back to last year's PGA, when Keegan Bradley used a belly putter to win, you get 3/5. Or if you go from the 2011 PGA to the 2012 British, you get 3/4. [quote name="Jimmy3putts" url="/t/55561/tiger-wants-to-ban-the-long-putter/630_30#post_757824"]My information tells me that several drivers (Including my old Callaway driver) have been illegal for a while now. [/quote] Callaway offered a replacement program for the ERC II, the most notable violator of the COR rule. [quote name="Jimmy3putts" url="/t/55561/tiger-wants-to-ban-the-long-putter/630_30#post_757824"]Now look at Garrigus and his stats over the last couple of years. Long isn't an advantage, just a preference.[/quote] Oh c'mon. You can't use one played with a crappy short game an inaccurate irons and extrapolate that to all long hitters. Tiger and Phil are both relatively long hitters, and they do alright.

[broomhandle]

Originally Posted by jamo

Oh c'mon. You can't use one played with a crappy short game an inaccurate irons and extrapolate that to all long hitters. Tiger and Phil are both relatively long hitters, and they do alright.

Besides being a long hitter(irrelevant here) Garrigus uses a long(not belly) putter.

I'm quite sure the point was in most cases the long/belly putter is helping people be decent pro putters, very seldom great putters.

The belly putter allowed the best ball-striker in the field to win the British Open while still putting below average relative to the field.

It should stay legal based on that service to the game alone.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by broomhandle

Besides being a long hitter(irrelevant here) Garrigus uses a long(not belly) putter.

Kindofa tangent, but if you want to talk about unnatural looking....  Garrigus's broomhandle putter looks a lot more natural than that 11" putter he used to play.

[ThatGolfGuy]

Sometimes its the indian not the arrow.

[Jimmy3putts]

Originally Posted by ApocG10

The bolded is exactly what I was going to point out. There was no reason for him to get new wedges, his are good for years to come. And there was no rule made that caused drivers to be illegal, so im guessing throwing it out was his own choice.

On top of that.... "Justifying it to the wife"... Wow... I don't know what kind of wives some people have, but its time to grow a set and stop letting the wife make the rules.

Just shown the missus you post and she's comin' to get ya - be afraid.

[Bayou Boogie]

I was taking up for the belly putter, but after a recent 3 week lay off due to injury, I am yipping the hell out of it and every other

putter I pick up. If you are yipping with both, it looks a lot better to be using the short one. The belly putter is not close to being

yip proof.

[Slim from SF]

Originally Posted by iacas

Or to think of it another way, I think if you asked golfers who just took up the sport which was the most likely reason they'd quit, and you gave them two choices - the full swing or putting - I doubt many are going to list putting. I think putting is about a billion times less frustrating to a new golfer than whiffing, for example.

Good point and well said.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by Jimmy3putts

Oh Shorty, get your facts right if you are going to be all arsey. The last 4 are - McIlroy (short), Simpson (long), Els (Long), Watson (Short). That's 50% Mr Science. My information tells me that several drivers (Including my old Callaway driver) have been illegal for a while now. Now look at Garrigus and his stats over the last couple of years. Long isn't an advantage, just a preference.

Could someone please translate this because I have no idea what this guy is on about.

[Jimmy3putts]

Originally Posted by Shorty

Could someone please translate this because I have no idea what this guy is on about.

Ok Shorty, I will do this slowly so you can follow. The fact is that only 3 people have won a major with the "long" putter so you can go back as far as you like all that does is reduce the win rate even more. I chose 16 as they are all different winners and to avoid duplication. So we have only three winners, yes?

The point I am try to make is against the arguement that "long" putters are an advantage, they are NOT. I used a small sample of evidence in different circumstances (number of major winners, Adam Scott and Robert Garrigus) to make the point.

Majors winners - 3 out of 16 (18.75%) not exactly a large proportion

Adam Scott - blew The Open on the 16th with a 2 footer using a "long putter" which is where the advantage is supposed to be.

Garrigus - was 1st on tour in putting inside 6 feet using the wee Scotty before the switch and now nowhere near using the long putter. The stats are on PGAtour.com

Happy now? Probably not.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Jimmy3putts

Ok Shorty, I will do this slowly so you can follow. The fact is that only 3 people have won a major with the "long" putter so you can go back as far as you like all that does is reduce the win rate even more. I chose 16 as they are all different winners and to avoid duplication. So we have only three winners, yes?

The point I am try to make is against the arguement that "long" putters are an advantage, they are NOT. I used a small sample of evidence in different circumstances (number of major winners, Adam Scott and Robert Garrigus) to make the point.

Majors winners - 3 out of 16 (18.75%) not exactly a large proportion

Adam Scott - blew The Open on the 16th with a 2 footer using a "long putter" which is where the advantage is supposed to be.

Garrigus - was 1st on tour in putting inside 6 feet using the wee Scotty before the switch and now nowhere near using the long putter. The stats are on PGAtour.com

Happy now? Probably not.

Yeah.  The only problem is that almost no one is basing their opposition to the long and belly putters on them being an advantage.  Most people base their opposition on the notion that allowing any anchored stroke is inappropriate.  So you are essentially arguing against a straw man.  It is much easier to win an argument against a straw man than it is to win against the actual arguments your opponents are making.  So you win the straw man argument and are a non-starter in the real argument.

[teamroper60]

The argument being presented here is that using a long or belly putter is not a proper stroke.   According to the USGA rules of golf, a stroke is defined as:

Stroke: A "stroke" is the forward movement of the club made with the intention of striking at and moving the ball, but if a player checks his downswing voluntarily before the clubhead reaches the ball he has not made a stroke.

Regardless of the type of putter used, it must make a forward movement in order to advance the ball.   So under the definition, players using a long or belly putter are still making a stroke as it is defined.    If the R&A; and USGA are going to change the definition of a stroke to prevent anchoring, they will have their hands full.    Can it be done?  Sure.   But if not carefully worded, such a rule  has the potential for unintended consequences.   This is likely why it has never been addressed before.   Long and belly putters may not be visually appealing to a purist but outlawing anchoring just to satisfy those who are opposed to the look could negatively affect other areas of the game the rest of us have never even considered because the focus has been on putting.

Sometimes, the best action is inaction.   In this case, I think it is the best route.