Tiger Wants to Ban the Long Putter

[TheGeekGolfer]

I've been thinking more about this lately and I still don't think the USGA or R&A; will ban the long putter or ban / define anchoring.  The USGA left it's definitions very vague on purpose, they don't regulate 'how' a stroke is made.  Sure, they define a stroke as "the forward movement of the club made with the intention of striking at and moving the ball".  The purposely don't tell you 'how' to make that stroke, just that it must be a stroke and not a push, spoon, etc.  I don't think they are going to start now and regulate how you can hold a club (which is essentially what they would be doing).  What's next, someone thinks that the 'claw' grip isn't 'how golf was meant to be played', so they ban that type of grip because it gives those golfers that can't putt holding the club in other manners an advantage.  Sounds to me like the same argument as anchoring the putter.  I think it's a slippery slope and they aren't going to go down it.  The 'we will discuss it' angle is (imo) just for show and to placate those that think it should be banned.  Interesting discussion, we'll see how it plays out.

[jhwmusic]

I feel it helps some and doesn't help others. Cuz I can't putt with it if my life depended on it. And putting is considered my strength. I feel it completely takes feel out of putting. I can knock the, em in with the belly from 5 and in all day, but if I step back beyond 10-15 my speed control gets worse and worse. And it isn't like I just tried it one day on the putting green....I own one. So I think people like Tiger need to stop their whining. He can't putt period right now...he should be more worried about that.

[LuciusWooding]

Originally Posted by jhwmusic

I feel it helps some and doesn't help others. Cuz I can't putt with it if my life depended on it. And putting is considered my strength. I feel it completely takes feel out of putting. I can knock the, em in with the belly from 5 and in all day, but if I step back beyond 10-15 my speed control gets worse and worse. And it isn't like I just tried it one day on the putting green....I own one. So I think people like Tiger need to stop their whining. He can't putt period right now...he should be more worried about that.

Tiger is working very hard right now regarding his putting. He already has excuses about why he can't putt on Bermuda, Zoysiagrass, Pikuya grass, and especially Poa. He just needs to work on Bent and Rye grass and he'll be all set. Honestly he could be putting on newspaper right now and he would misread it. Maybe he misses his putts because he's too busy glaring at Keegan's bag during his stroke.

[jhwmusic]

Tiger is working very hard right now regarding his putting. He already has excuses about why he can't putt on Bermuda, Zoysiagrass, Pikuya grass, and especially Poa. He just needs to work on Bent and Rye grass and he'll be all set. Honestly he could be putting on newspaper right now and he would misread it. Maybe he misses his putts because he's too busy glaring at Keegan's bag during his stroke.

What happened with him and Keegans bag?

[Stretch]

He spat in it.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer

The purposely don't tell you 'how' to make that stroke, just that it must be a stroke and not a push, spoon, etc.  I don't think they are going to start now and regulate how you can hold a club (which is essentially what they would be doing).  What's next, someone thinks that the 'claw' grip isn't 'how golf was meant to be played', so they ban that type of grip because it gives those golfers that can't putt holding the club in other manners an advantage.

Bit of a straw man. We shouldn't do this because then they might ban the claw grip? I don't think it's a slippery slope, and I don't think the USGA or R&A; could care any less about the claw grip.

The USGA and R&A; do define several aspects of "how" you may make a stroke. You listed several. Standing astride the line of your putt is another. Any possible ruling on "anchoring" (if they wanted to go that route) would simply further refine the "how."

I still think perhaps a ruling on the grip could be the way to go. Limit shaft thickness and grip length to 11" or so from the butt end of the club and let the belly putters grip their putters on the steel shaft if they want. No more split grips or 24" grips. Then they wouldn't have to define the "how."

[TheGeekGolfer]

Originally Posted by iacas

Bit of a straw man. We shouldn't do this because then they might ban the claw grip? I don't think it's a slippery slope, and I don't think the USGA or R&A; could care any less about the claw grip.

The USGA and R&A; do define several aspects of "how" you may make a stroke. You listed several. Standing astride the line of your putt is another. Any possible ruling on "anchoring" (if they wanted to go that route) would simply further refine the "how."

I still think perhaps a ruling on the grip could be the way to go. Limit shaft thickness and grip length to 11" or so from the butt end of the club and let the belly putters grip their putters on the steel shaft if they want. No more split grips or 24" grips. Then they wouldn't have to define the "how."

They define "how" you take a "stance", not how you make a stroke.  They define how the ball is to be struck, not in the manner in which you swing the club.  They did this on purpose, to allow for creativity during the course of a round.  It's what allows a golfer to adjust to certain situations on the course.  What if a ball is under a bush and I kneel on the ground to hit it.  In the course of doing so, the only way to swing is if the butt of the club is wedged up against my body.  Would that be banned under 'anchoring'?  That's why I don't think they will change the rule, it would end up effecting other situation and aspects of the game that they have chosen not to govern.

So, now they should change the grip rule?  No, sorry, I don't buy it.  I just don't think they should or will.  They examined this issue years ago and put in the bit about putters having two grips, which they would have known would be for long putters.  Plus, with limiting the grip to 11", you could still  anchor the putter in your belly and have a larger thickness shaft.  I looked at appendix II and didn't see any specifications about shaft thickness.  Plus, you could just wear another glove on your bottom hand that enabled you to grip the shaft better.

That's the slippery slope I'm talking about, they would have to start defining many aspects of the game that they haven't defined in the past and would end up stifling on-course creativity, just to ban something that I don't even think the majority of golfers would want banned.  What is the purpose of that?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer

They define "how" you take a "stance", not how you make a stroke.  They define how the ball is to be struck, not in the manner in which you swing the club.

Fine. If you want to play that game, then they may simply define "how" you "grip" the club legally.

But from where I'm sitting, "how" you make a stroke includes how you are standing when you make the stroke and how you use the implement to make the stroke. But okay - the grip

Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer

Would that be banned under 'anchoring'?

First, I don't think that situation would necessitate anchoring, so I don't really care if it would ban that type of stroke. Stick the butt of the club outside of the left side of your body. I had to play a chip that was on a nearly vertical wall at Oakmont once and the butt of the club stuck out. No reason you can't do that.

Beyond that, I think it's pointless to discuss what would be banned given we don't know what the USGA is going to do if they do anything at all.

Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer

So, now they should change the grip rule?  No, sorry, I don't buy it.  I just don't think they should or will.

I think we're aware of how you feel on the issue. I was simply demonstrating a way to effectively "ban" belly putters without mandating "how" using your definition.

Debating would be awfully easy if we just get to say "Nope, I think you're wrong. I don't buy it" to everything.

Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer

They examined this issue years ago and put in the bit about putters having two grips, which they would have known would be for long putters.  Plus, with limiting the grip to 11", you could still  anchor the putter in your belly and have a larger thickness shaft.

So? Once a rule's added it can't ever be removed? Ooh, my turn to try! "No, I don't buy it."

And if someone wanted to putt using gloves (they'd have to conform to the Rules too, of course) by gripping the thin steel shaft of a putter, I say go for it. It's not easy, and people would greatly prefer to put their hands on a grip rather than on the shaft of their putter.

Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer

That's the slippery slope I'm talking about, they would have to start defining many aspects of the game that they haven't defined in the past and would end up stifling on-course creativity, just to ban something that I don't even think the majority of golfers would want banned.  What is the purpose of that?

The Overall Distance Standard defined aspects of the game that weren't defined in the past. Or would you rather we didn't have the ODS, too?

And we're not talking about defining "many aspects" - we're talking about defining ONE aspect - the aspect of anchoring a putter to your body. It only becomes a slippery slope if people let it become one. You're arguing against possible belly putter legislation because of vague things that are highly unlikely (in my estimation) to occur.

[jhwmusic]

He spat in it.

Ha No way! What really happened?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by jhwmusic

Ha No way! What really happened?

No. Was a wisecrack about Keegan's spitting "issue."

[jhwmusic]

No. Was a wisecrack about Keegan's spitting "issue."

got it

[TheGeekGolfer]

Originally Posted by iacas

Fine. If you want to play that game, then they may simply define "how" you "grip" the club legally.

But from where I'm sitting, "how" you make a stroke includes how you are standing when you make the stroke and how you use the implement to make the stroke. But okay - the grip

I'm not playing any 'games', I'm simply stating my opinion.

OK, now let's define how one grips the club.  Let's read that definition... one or two hands, do the hands have to be touching, interlocking?  Can I grip it with my opposite hand on top or must it be 'traditional'?  This stifles creativity and it's my opinion that that is bad for the game.  That's why I don't think the USGA will do it.

Originally Posted by iacas

First, I don't think that situation would necessitate anchoring, so I don't really care if it would ban that type of stroke. Stick the butt of the club outside of the left side of your body. I had to play a chip that was on a nearly vertical wall at Oakmont once and the butt of the club stuck out. No reason you can't do that.

Beyond that, I think it's pointless to discuss what would be banned given we don't know what the USGA is going to do if they do anything at all.

Sure, you don't think that situation would require anchoring, but the point is, it limit you on the course, because there are situation where it would be necessary.  When you stuck the club outside the left side of your body, did you grip it on the steel of the shaft?  What if the definition of 'grip' included that the hands had to be touching the 11" grip portion of the club.  Once again, it limits you in situations on the golf course.  Golf is to random of a game to limit or ban certain ways of 'how' make a stroke at the ball.

Originally Posted by iacas

Beyond that, I think it's pointless to discuss what would be banned given we don't know what the USGA is going to do if they do anything at all.

Isn't that the point of this thread?  To discuss why we as individuals think it should or shouldn't be banned and what might be banned and why you think the USGA should go one way or the other?  I guess this whole thread is pointless then?

Originally Posted by iacas

So? Once a rule's added it can't ever be removed? Ooh, my turn to try! "No, I don't buy it."

Eric, I'm not arguing with you or trying to convince you, I know that is a 'pointless' discussion .  You just happen to be very vocal on the subject and I use that to further define my opinion for others (if they want) to read.  And no, I never said once a rule is added it can't be removed. My opinion is simply this, it lends more credit to leaving it the way it is currently defined.

Originally Posted by iacas

And if someone wanted to putt using gloves (they'd have to conform to the Rules too, of course) by gripping the thin steel shaft of a putter, I say go for it. It's not easy, and people would greatly prefer to put their hands on a grip rather than on the shaft of their putter.

Of course those gloves must conform, never said otherwise.  So, first you are against 'anchoring', but wait, that argument isn't working, let's try the grip and let them go ahead if they want to grip the shaft.  I thought you were against the stroke itself?

Originally Posted by iacas

And we're not talking about defining "many aspects" - we're talking about defining ONE aspect - the aspect of anchoring a putter to your body. It only becomes a slippery slope if people let it become one. You're arguing against possible belly putter legislation because of vague things that are highly unlikely (in my estimation) to occur.

Your making my point, to define this 'one' aspect, you have to define quite a few other things.  You want to define 'anchoring' or maybe 'the grip' of the club or wait, maybe 'how' the club is gripped?  In my opinion, you are going into an area that the USGA has purposely left alone.  Why, because it makes the game more creative and open to a larger population of golfers.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer

OK, now let's define how one grips the club.  Let's read that definition... one or two hands, do the hands have to be touching, interlocking?  Can I grip it with my opposite hand on top or must it be 'traditional'?  This stifles creativity and it's my opinion that that is bad for the game.  That's why I don't think the USGA will do it.

It stifles creativity? Assuming it does (and I think that's a massive stretch), why is that a bad thing? Again, you can't putt standing astride the line of the putt. So that stifles creativity. You can't whack the ball with the grip of the club. That stifles creativity. You can't use an 80" club. I guess that stifles creativity, too.

You're raising straw men issues. Nobody cares if you grip the club with the opposite hand on top. That's not what this issue is about. You keep arguing the belly putter stuff by trying to argue stuff much farther down a slippery slope I don't think we'll get to.

Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer

When you stuck the club outside the left side of your body, did you grip it on the steel of the shaft?  What if the definition of 'grip' included that the hands had to be touching the 11" grip portion of the club.

And there's more made up stuff. I'm not responding to that kind of stuff anymore because it's silly to discuss things that haven't happened and which nobody is talking about doing. Nobody's suggested the claw or left-hand-low or gripping the club on the steel will be made illegal, and it's silly to think that it would be.

Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer

So, first you are against 'anchoring', but wait, that argument isn't working, let's try the grip and let them go ahead if they want to grip the shaft. I thought you were against the stroke itself?

I am against the stroke. Not by a lot, but if I had to pick, I'd lean towards making it illegal. I simply suggested the grip idea (the physical grip, not where a player puts his hands) as being a way of effectively banning belly putting and long putting, because I can't imagine pros wanting to putt by holding onto a thin round shaft just to gain the ability to stick the butt of the club in their belly button. Same goal: ban belly putting, and it may be easier to write the language by changing the equipment rules. It still allows older golfers or Raymond Floyd (he of the really long putter) to play with a more upright stance without requiring the putter to be the shortest club in the bag.

Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer

Your making my point, to define this 'one' aspect, you have to define quite a few other things. You want to define 'anchoring' or maybe 'the grip' of the club or wait, maybe 'how' the club is gripped?  In my opinion, you are going into an area that the USGA has purposely left alone.  Why, because it makes the game more creative and open to a larger population of golfers.

Jamming a club in your gut is not "more creative," and no, I'm not "defining quite a few other things." My proposed solution simply modifies existing rules regarding the make and form of equipment. That's it.

Respond to me again if you wish, but as with the Miceli thread, I'm repeating myself often enough to know that I've said about all I can say. Take care.

[Texian]

I think Lucius was referring to the fact that Keegan is probably the poster child for long putters right now, since he won a major with one.

Originally Posted by jhwmusic

What happened with him and Keegans bag?

[TheGeekGolfer]

Originally Posted by iacas

It stifles creativity? Assuming it does (and I think that's a massive stretch), why is that a bad thing? Again, you can't putt standing astride the line of the putt. So that stifles creativity. You can't whack the ball with the grip of the club. That stifles creativity. You can't use an 80" club. I guess that stifles creativity, too.

Once again, I never said this stuff.  I said it stifles creativity in regards to the way a legal stroke is made.  A legal stroke has already been defined.  This is why I have to quote you, you say things in regards to my posts that I didn't say and try to make it seem as if I said it.

An actually, yes, I do think you should be able to stand astride or any way you want when you make your stroke, but I live with that one.

Also, I think you can use an 80* club, I read Appendix II of the USGA rules and it never mentions anything about a maximum loft on a golf club.  Feel wedges has a 73* model on their website.

Originally Posted by iacas

It stifles creativity? Assuming it does (and I think that's a massive stretch), why is that a bad thing? Again, you can't putt standing astride the line of the putt. So that stifles creativity. You can't whack the ball with the grip of the club. That stifles creativity. You can't use an 80" club. I guess that stifles creativity, too.

You're raising straw men issues. Nobody cares if you grip the club with the opposite hand on top. That's not what this issue is about. You keep arguing the belly putter stuff by trying to argue stuff much farther down a slippery slope I don't think we'll get to.

And there's more made up stuff. I'm not responding to that kind of stuff anymore because it's silly to discuss things that haven't happened and which nobody is talking about doing. Nobody's suggested the claw or left-hand-low or gripping the club on the steel will be made illegal, and it's silly to think that it would be.

I am against the stroke. Not by a lot, but if I had to pick, I'd lean towards making it illegal. I simply suggested the grip idea (the physical grip, not where a player puts his hands) as being a way of effectively banning belly putting and long putting, because I can't imagine pros wanting to putt by holding onto a thin round shaft just to gain the ability to stick the butt of the club in their belly button. Same goal: ban belly putting, and it may be easier to write the language by changing the equipment rules. It still allows older golfers or Raymond Floyd (he of the really long putter) to play with a more upright stance without requiring the putter to be the shortest club in the bag.

Jamming a club in your gut is not "more creative," and no, I'm not "defining quite a few other things." My proposed solution simply modifies existing rules regarding the make and form of equipment. That's it.

Respond to me again if you wish, but as with the Miceli thread, I'm repeating myself often enough to know that I've said about all I can say. Take care.

I'm NOT trying to convince you are change your mind.  I DO think it is a slippery slope and that's my opinion and that's what I've stated.  Therefore, I'm giving examples of why I believe it to be a slippery slope.  I don't care if you think it isn't, the only reason I quote your posts is because you bring things up that I never said and post them as if that was my intent.  Then, I need to quote your posts to clarify.    I really don't care about your stance on the subject.  I think it's wrong, end of story.  I'm posting so if anyone else finds it relevant or not, they can read it and if they are 'sitting on the fence' or indifferent about the subject, they can think more about the issues with changing the current rules and definitions of golf.  Then they can make up their own mind with all the information.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer

Also, I think you can use an 80* club

I typed " not °.

Inches.

[TheGeekGolfer]

Originally Posted by iacas

I typed " not °.

Inches.

Sorry, my bad on that one.

[bilinguru]

Well, I just spent an hour reading this thread and have a few observations.

Firstly, and this is true generally of internet forums, there is no shortage of opinions that are based in ignorance.

I don't want to call out specific contributors, as I think that is mean spirited, but I do wish people would take the time to inform themselves before shooting of their ideas.  It would save everyone else a lot of time and save themselves some embarassment.

That being said, I wonder how many people posting on this thread have actually read the rules of golf.  My guess is almost none of you.  So, for your edification please read the following excerpts from the USGA website...

Appendix II, 1a provides that:

A club is an implement designed to be used for striking the ball and generally comes in three forms: woods, irons and putters distinguished by shape and intended use. A putter is a club with a loft not exceeding ten degrees designed primarily for use on the putting green.

In defining what is meant by the term “club,” this Rule makes reference to the three main forms a club traditionally takes, i.e., woods, irons and putters. The words “wood” and “iron” do not necessarily refer to the material the club is made out of, but rather to the general shape of the clubhead. A “wood” club is one where the head is relatively broad from face to back, and it can be made of materials such as titanium, steel or wood. An “iron” club is one where the head is relatively narrow from face to back, and it is usually made of steel.

By definition, the loft of a putter must not exceed 10 degrees, and a club with a loft greater than that is normally regarded as an iron club. Putters are permitted to have negative loft. However, a loft of less than -15 degrees would not be considered “traditional and customary in form and make” (See Design of Clubs, Section 1a(i)).

The Rules and guidelines sometimes distinguish between “wood” and “iron” clubs (see Design of Clubs, Section 5c for an example of where they do). As hybrid, rescue and utility clubs have increased in popularity and design variety, it is sometimes challenging to define whether a particular club should be classified as a wood or an iron. In such cases, the general shape of the clubhead should be referenced in order to determine which classification should apply for the purpose of applying the rules. Additionally, there are various instances throughout the Rules where different specifications apply to putters. These differences in the Rules will be highlighted appropriately throughout this Guide.

As a consequence of these differences, confusion often exists as to which rules apply to “chippers,” i.e., iron clubs which are specifically designed to be used just off the putting green with a putting stroke. For clarification on “The Status of a Chipper,” see Decision 4-1/3 in “Decisions on the Rules of Golf” and Design of Clubs, Section 1c.

Appendix II, 1a goes on to state that:

The club must not be substantially different from the traditionally and customary form and make. The club must be composed of a shaft and a head and it may also have material added to the shaft to enable the player to obtain a firm hold (see 3 below). All parts must be fixed so that the club is one unit, and it must have no external attachments. Exceptions may be made for attachments that do not affect the performance of the club.

In explaining this part of the Rule, it is easier to divide it into the following four sections:

(i) Traditional and Customary Form and Make

The phrase “traditional and customary form and make” does not mean that clubs must look the same as they did 100 years ago. If so, steel shafts and metal woodheads would not conform to the Rules. As noted in the introduction to this Guide, it is not the purpose of the Rules to stifle innovation.

In practice, the “Traditional and Customary Rule” is rarely used — having been largely superseded by the “Plain in Shape” Rule (see Design of Clubs, Section 4a). However, it is still applied in those cases where the Equipment Standards Committee decides that a particular design deviates from traditional appearance and/or construction standards, but which may not be covered by a more specific provision within the Rules.

c. Length

Appendix II, 1c provides that:

The overall length of the club must be at least 18 inches (0.457 m) and, except for putters, must not exceed 48 inches (1.219 m).

This Rule is straightforward, and the measurement of woods and irons is well described and illustrated in “The Rules of Golf.” The measurement of length for putters can be illustrated as follows:

Note that the Equipment Standards Committee has adopted a position that clubs designed for chipping, including modified wedges, must be no longer than standard-length clubs of similar loft.

d. Alignment

Appendix II, 1d provides that:

When the club is in its normal address position the shaft must be so aligned that: (i) the projection of the straight part of the shaft on to the vertical plane through the toe and heel must diverge from the vertical by at least 10 degrees. If the overall design of the club is such that the player can effectively use the club in a vertical or close-to-vertical position, the shaft may be required to diverge from the vertical in this plane by as much as 25 degrees; (ii) the projection of the straight part of the shaft on to the vertical plane along the intended line of play must not diverge from the vertical by more than 20 degrees forward or 10 degrees backward.

This Rule is particularly relevant to putters, and it exists mainly as a means for disallowing croquet or vertical-pendulum style putters (with vertical shafts) and shuffle-board style strokes, as well as designs which facilitate such strokes (see Figure 4).

For most putters, the “normal address position” is determined by the geometry of the head. The head would be placed on a horizontal flat surface, with the sole touching that surface at a point directly below the center of the face. The shaft angle is measured with the head in this position (see Figure 5).

If the putter head shape or weight distribution is very asymmetric, it may be necessary to make a subjective judgment as to where the effective center of the face is, and then to sole the club directly below that point. The position of the head in this instance may not always be the position that was intended by design. Nonetheless, in some cases, a judgment must be made based on how the club could feasibly and effectively be used (see Figure 6).

The same subjectivity may also be needed when confronted with a putter which has a very curved sole (see Figure 7). As before, the Equipment Standards Committee takes into account not only the manner in which the putter is designed to be used, but also the way it could feasibly and effectively be used, given the geometry of the head as well as other unique characteristics of the overall design. This interpretation is particularly relevant to long-shafted putters with very curved or multi-planed soles — however, standard-length putters of approximately 34 to 38 inches may also be subjected to this assessment.

It should be noted that all putters can usually be positioned in such a way that the shaft diverges from the vertical by less than 10 degrees or even to a position where the shaft itself is vertical. Also, it is unusual for the sole of a putter to be completely flat all the way from heel to toe. When faced with a ruling of this kind, the decision should not be based on whether a player uses the putter with the shaft in a position of less than 10 degrees — but whether the putter design facilitates a player placing the shaft in a position of less than 10 degrees.

If the overall design of a putter is such that the player can achieve a “vertical-pendulum” style stroke (i.e., putt effectively with the shaft in a vertical or near-vertical position), it would be ruled contrary to Appendix II, 1d, even if the shaft angle does satisfy the 10-degree Rule when the putter is in its “normal address position.” The shaft angle on such a putter could be required to be increased to as much as 25 degrees. In assessing whether a putter can be used effectively in a “vertical-pendulum” style manner, the combination of the following features should be considered:

• length of shaft
• position of shaft attachment to head
• angle of shaft in toe-to-heel plane and front-to-back plane
• shape and weight distribution of head
• curvature and shape of sole
• intent of the design

Even though each of these putter features, when considered separately, could conform to the Rules, the combination of the features might lead to a decision that the putter does not conform.

This is an extremely good example of an area where rules officials should take care not to make a decision unless they are 100% certain they are correct. If, after examining the club and carrying out all of the appropriate consultations, it is still not possible to give a definitive ruling, a Duration of Competition or Duration of Round Answer should be given (see Field Procedures — Guidance to Rules Officials Concerning Questions on the Conformity of Clubs at Competitions).

The determination of a feasible “normal address position” or whether a putter can be used with the shaft in a vertical or close-to-vertical position can be highly subjective and, in terms of those putters actually submitted to the USGA, the job of making rulings is easier because it is possible to compare them with previous submissions and decisions.