Tiger Wants to Ban the Long Putter

[broomhandle]

Originally Posted by iacas

1. Grooves. The whole PING case kinda defines "was looked at and very explicitly left legal" don't you think?

2. And why do you think the long putter WAS looked at and very explicitly left legal? I don't see that as being the case at all. It's kind of snuck up on people.

3. And who cares if a rule is changed after 20 or 50 or 100 years? Rules change in every sport over time. We had stymies and putting with the flagstick in and all sorts of things in golf.

1. No, as I said in the part of my post you missed I don't think the authorities ever actually changed their desired direction. I think they were forced by 3rd parties to delay and compromise which is considerably different. I could have that wrong as I've never paid very close attention.

2. Because I lived through that previous inquisition. I picked up a "Slim Jim'  long putter shortly after Charlie Owens, Orville Moody and some others started using it. We didn't have WWW then but it was in the magazines. I was actually moderately surprised that it survived. Don't the rules limit clubs to 48" EXCEPT for putters and define what split grips are legal? Good evidence that the long putter was considered.

The BELLY has snuck up on people lately. A new ruling on the belly effecting the broomhandle little or none would not be as clearly contrary to 20 years of tradition and history.

3.When the main attack is that long putters are 'not golf' or 'inappropriate' or not 'proper' then I think the fact that they have been ruled as proper golf and appropriate for a considerable span of years should be a very large factor in the argument.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by broomhandle

1. No, as I said in the part of my post you missed I don't think the authorities ever actually changed their desired direction. I think they were forced by 3rd parties to delay and compromise which is considerably different. I could have that wrong as I've never paid very close attention.

I didn't miss it, I simply don't think they were forced to "delay" or wait it out. They banned the larger grooves because people were playing too much bomb & gouge - the penalty for missing the fairway had dramatically lessened and reached a point where they couldn't sit by any longer. So they studied it, came to a conclusion, and enacted the rules change.

Originally Posted by broomhandle

2. Because I lived through that previous inquisition. I picked up a "Slim Jim'  long putter shortly after Charlie Owens, Orville Moody and some others started using it. We didn't have WWW then but it was in the magazines. I was actually moderately surprised that it survived. Don't the rules limit clubs to 48" EXCEPT for putters and define what split grips are legal? Good evidence that the long putter was considered.

I guess we'll disagree on what "explicitly looking at" means. I consider it to mean in light of the current method of use. They've said they don't care about the equipment itself, but rather, how it's employed - both the long and the belly putter. So to me they didn't explicitly look at the method of use before, but sure, they looked at the rules for the equipment.

Originally Posted by broomhandle

3.When the main attack is that long putters are 'not golf' or 'inappropriate' or not 'proper' then I think the fact that they have been ruled as proper golf and appropriate for a considerable span of years should be a very large factor in the argument.

I completely disagree.

Several things have been ruled as "proper golf and appropriate for a considerable span of years" and then changed, both in golf and other sports. "Because that's the way it's always been" is, to me, a lousy reason to keep a bad rule around.

[dave67az]

I don't want to jump in where I don't belong, but listening to this makes me laugh a little.

Has this argument about whether they should be banned really turned into "they can't do it because they've never done anything like it before"?

The only relevant question in MY mind is "how does the belly putter impact golf tradition".  Yes, with new technology golf equipment improves.  But when you start changing equipment so much that it changes the way you play the game (i.e. the way you hold the clubs in order to make a stroke) to me it's damaging to the game's traditions.

But to say they can't ban something because they've never done it like this before isn't really a LOGICAL argument, is it?

- Dave

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Jimmy3putts

What about Bill Haas? Seems to have gone back to a standard length putter. It's all about what suits you and we don't need regulation on that thanks. We need the men in suits to look at stupid rules like touching a blade of grass in a hazzrad on the back swing, picking and dropping from a fairway divot that was not replaced.........

Except there is no stupid rule about touching blades of grass in a hazard.  It is OK to touch (fixed) blades of grass.  What is not ok is moving a loose impediment like a leaf.  I felt bad for the guy but it showed poor judgement, IMO, to even put the club that close to the ball in a hazard.  It was a mental fart on his part and sadly it was one that he had to pay the price for.

[Jimdangles]

Originally Posted by dave67az

I don't want to jump in where I don't belong, but listening to this makes me laugh a little.

Has this argument about whether they should be banned really turned into "they can't do it because they've never done anything like it before"?

The only relevant question in MY mind is "how does the belly putter impact golf tradition".  Yes, with new technology golf equipment improves.  But when you start changing equipment so much that it changes the way you play the game (i.e. the way you hold the clubs in order to make a stroke) to me it's damaging to the game's traditions.

But to say they can't ban something because they've never done it like this before isn't really a LOGICAL argument, is it?

- Dave

You keep worrying about stepping on toes Dave. Relax man. All opinions here are welcome as long as they're on topic. Thats exactly what this place is for. Opinions and discussion.

[The Recreational Golfer]

This is from the July 27 Golfweek magazine regarding an upcoming rules change:

"Mike Davis, [R&A; chief executive Peter] Dawson's counterpart at the USGA, said an equipment ban is off the table and that the focus will be solely on the stroke itself. He says the focus extends to all levels of the game." p. 10

And like I said earlier in this thread, it would not surprise me to see lawsuits, as hinted at above, over the ruling, if any restriction is put into the rules.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Jimdangles

You keep worrying about stepping on toes Dave. Relax man. All opinions here are welcome as long as they're on topic. Thats exactly what this place is for. Opinions and discussion.

Yeah, if it's on-topic and not a personal attack, post whatever you want. The best posts are the ones that disagree, because that's where we get discussion.

Originally Posted by The Recreational Golfer

And like I said earlier in this thread, it would not surprise me to see lawsuits, as hinted at above, over the ruling, if any restriction is put into the rules.

On what grounds?

(I know you don't necessarily mean successful lawsuits, but I still don't get on what grounds there would be lawsuits. Also, I'm not asking you specifically, but if you have an answer, I'd love to hear it.)

[newtogolf]

What I had heard on PGA Tour radio is that the R&A; were looking to change the rules before long / belly putters became popular outside the United States.  The issue isn't so much with the length of the putter but with anchoring or the club which some in the R&A; believe provides an advantage.  I don't see why such a rules change would result in law suits since other rules have been changed in the past.  People with bad backs could still use longer putters they just wouldn't be allowed to anchor it however the rules specify.

Originally Posted by The Recreational Golfer

This is from the July 27 Golfweek magazine regarding an upcoming rules change:

"Mike Davis, [R&A; chief executive Peter] Dawson's counterpart at the USGA, said an equipment ban is off the table and that the focus will be solely on the stroke itself. He says the focus extends to all levels of the game." p. 10

And like I said earlier in this thread, it would not surprise me to see lawsuits, as hinted at above, over the ruling, if any restriction is put into the rules.

[Bayou Boogie]

My thinking that in the attempt to grow the game at all levels, with a stroke accepted in play for so long, the ruling bodies will not want to discourage anyone

this will effect--namely the legions of yipping bastards that try to play this game into their senior years--of which I am a proud member!

[dave67az]

I'm only 45.  I have a few back problems, but nothing that prohibits me from putting.

Thing is, if you're arguing that the putter shouldn't be banned for people with bad backs, I don't think you have much to worry about. Read the red text below.

Nothing wrong with using a long putter, as far as I would be concerned, so long as it is being used to alleviate a valid medical condition.

So I imagine if a bunch of people with bad backs tried to sue, they wouldn't get very far since the rules already address medical problems.

Know what I mean?

USGA rule 14-3 (excerpt)...

Except as provided in the Rules , during a stipulated round the player must not use any artificial device or unusual equipment (see Appendix IV for detailed specifications and interpretations), or use any equipment in an unusual manner:

a. That might assist him in making a stroke or in his play; or

b. For the purpose of gauging or measuring distance or conditions that might affect his play; or

c. That might assist him in gripping the club, except that:

(i) gloves may be worn provided that they are plain gloves;

(ii) resin, powder and drying or moisturizing agents may be used; and

(iii) a towel or handkerchief may be wrapped around the grip.

Exceptions:

1. A player is not in breach of this Rule if (a) the equipment or device is designed for or has the effect of alleviating a medical condition, (b) the player has a legitimate medical reason to use the equipment or device, and (c) the Committee is satisfied that its use does not give the player any undue advantage over other players.

[broomhandle]

Originally Posted by dave67az

I'm only 45.  I have a few back problems, but nothing that prohibits me from putting.

Thing is, if you're arguing that the putter shouldn't be banned for people with bad backs, I don't think you have much to worry about. Read the red text below.

Nothing wrong with using a long putter, as far as I would be concerned, so long as it is being used to alleviate a valid medical condition.

So I imagine if a bunch of people with bad backs tried to sue, they wouldn't get very far since the rules already address medical problems.

Know what I mean?

USGA rule 14-3 (excerpt)...

Except as provided in the Rules, during a stipulated round the player must not use any artificial device or unusual equipment (see Appendix IV for detailed specifications and interpretations), or use any equipment in an unusual manner:

a. That might assist him in making a stroke or in his play; or

b. For the purpose of gauging or measuring distance or conditions that might affect his play; or

c. That might assist him in gripping the club, except that:

(i) gloves may be worn provided that they are plain gloves;

(ii) resin, powder and drying or moisturizing agents may be used; and

(iii) a towel or handkerchief may be wrapped around the grip.

Exceptions:

1. A player is not in breach of this Rule if (a) the equipment or device is designed for or has the effect of alleviating a medical condition, (b) the player has a legitimate medical reason to use the equipment or device, and (c) the Committee is satisfied that its use does not give the player any undue advantage over other players.

I think that's specifically non-club devices. Like you cant wear a wrist brace to keep your wrist straight as a technique aid but you may be able to if you need it to function at all. Even then maybe not due to clause c.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by broomhandle

I think that's specifically non-club devices. Like you cant wear a wrist brace to keep your wrist straight as a technique aid but you may be able to if you need it to function at all. Even then maybe not due to clause c.

So, as I understand you, if there was a shaft extension that could be used to extend the shaft for golfers with bad backs, this would be a "non-club device" (assuming that whomever was running the course/tourney agreed that it didn't give said golfer-with-the-bad-back an advantage)?

I'm quite sure something like that would be fairly easy to craft (and cheap, too).

- Dave

[broomhandle]

Originally Posted by dave67az

So, as I understand you, if there was a shaft extension that could be used to extend the shaft for golfers with bad backs, this would be a "non-club device" (assuming that whomever was running the course/tourney agreed that it didn't give said golfer-with-the-bad-back an advantage)?

I'm quite sure something like that would be fairly easy to craft (and cheap, too).

- Dave

Well, that's not a good example because they've promised not to regulate length directly.(this time, anyway)

They MIGHT indirectly kill 50" putters by leaving no legal practical way to use them.

I think they -should- do nothing but I think they -probably- will kill belly putters qua belly putters but leave room for people with bad backs to have workable options.

[broomhandle]

If A says 'Long putters should be banned because they are 'not golf' then B saying they have 'been golf' for 20 years is a very specific counter-argument to A's specific premise.

It is eminently logical and nothing like saying the rules can't change because they've always been this way.

[The Recreational Golfer]

Originally Posted by iacas

On what grounds?

(I know you don't necessarily mean successful lawsuits, but I still don't get on what grounds there would be lawsuits. Also, I'm not asking you specifically, but if you have an answer, I'd love to hear it.)

I have no idea what the grounds would be, nor can I think of any legal precedents that might be brought into play. But then, that's what you pay a lawyer to come up with, much like Casey Martin and the golf cart.

I really do think we'll see some legal action if anchoring is banned. Not that I condone it or oppose it (legal action), I just think it will happen.

[The Recreational Golfer]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

What I had heard on PGA Tour radio is that the R&A; were looking to change the rules before long / belly putters became popular outside the United States.  The issue isn't so much with the length of the putter but with anchoring or the club which some in the R&A; believe provides an advantage.  I don't see why such a rules change would result in law suits since other rules have been changed in the past.  People with bad backs could still use longer putters they just wouldn't be allowed to anchor it however the rules specify.

The lawsuits, if any, would come from touring pros who anchor a long putter. Nothing says a lawsuit has to make sense before it is filed, or have any chance of success.

[newtogolf]

True, you can sue anyone for any reason but it's not often athletes bring a lawsuit against a rules committee.   To my knowledge there's no union for PGA players and they are free to play anywhere they wish so I think it would be difficult for such a suit to gain traction.

Originally Posted by The Recreational Golfer

The lawsuits, if any, would come from touring pros who anchor a long putter. Nothing says a lawsuit has to make sense before it is filed, or have any chance of success.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by broomhandle

If A says 'Long putters should be banned because they are 'not golf' then B saying they have 'been golf' for 20 years is a very specific counter-argument to A's specific premise.

It is eminently logical and nothing like saying the rules can't change because they've always been this way.

Maybe I misunderstood.  I'm not going to go back to see who said it.  May have been you, may have been someone else.  But SOMEONE was trying to say that since they've let people use it for 20 years, and since the USGA has never banned something after letting people use it for 20 years, that they shouldn't be able to ban it THIS time.

That argument is illogical, in my opinion.  To say that just because something has not been done before means it SHOULDN'T be done is not based on logic, rather it's based solely on emotion.

When faced with new circumstances (just as in the court system) the situation should be evaluated solely on its merits.  I mean seriously, do you think we would have ANY rules in golf if there hadn't been a first time for everything?

"Well, they've never limited the number of clubs we had before, so why are they doing it now?"

"Well, they've never said the golf balls shouldn't have a maximum distance before, so they shouldn't do it now."

- Dave