Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)

[meenman]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/european-tour-will-support-anchored-putting-ban-leaving-pga-tour-odd-man-out

This article makes a lot of good points, but the primary one being that Finchem is basically just covering his bases, as a corporate politician must. He's asking the USGA to back off on the ban, but knows that the Tour would never be able to stand alone (and also knows that there's no reason to make a lot of waves when the majority of Tour players probably either support the ban or don't care either way), so will probably not fight it with any stronger statements or actions than that.  That appeases the anchorers in the Tour, to whom he can say "Hey, I tried".

And the LPGA has said that they will follow the USGA (not that more than a handful care)

Has the Champions tour taken a position yet? (not that anyone cares what they say either)

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by Mordan

An article from Sports Illustrated published in 1967, with many interesting parallels.

What I found most interesting about that is two things:

1) How many prominent players on the PGA Tour were against the USGA and voiced a very strong annoyance to their decision.

2) How it at least appears that the R&A;, and Europe in general (meaning their Tour & members) seem to take a much more firm stance on matters of preservation of the game, and really don't care about offending their members/constituents.  Read some of the words they use like "crackpot" and "absurd" when describing the use of the alternative putting methods vs the USGA talking about how reluctant they were to ban croquet style putters/putting.

I really wonder what this is attributed to?  Does Europe feel a greater sense of ownership of the original intent and nobility of the game since it originated over there?  Do the OEM manufacturers have more influence in the American market which leads to some type of political balancing that the USGA tries to account for when making decisions?

Originally Posted by Stretch

Well, we've explicitly disqualified data as a means of evaluating the wisdom of this decision, so all we're left with is opinions. And you know what they say about those ...

But there really is no data, is there?  What data exists that speaks directly and relevantly to the issue?

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordan

An article from Sports Illustrated published in 1967, with many interesting parallels.

What I found most interesting about that is two things:

1) How many prominent players on the PGA Tour were against the USGA and voiced a very strong annoyance to their decision.

2) How it at least appears that the R&A;, and Europe in general (meaning their Tour & members) seem to take a much more firm stance on matters of preservation of the game, and really don't care about offending their members/constituents.  Read some of the words they use like "crackpot" and "absurd" when describing the use of the alternative putting methods vs the USGA talking about how reluctant they were to ban croquet style putters/putting.

I really wonder what this is attributed to?  Does Europe feel a greater sense of ownership of the original intent and nobility of the game since it originated over there?  Do the OEM manufacturers have more influence in the American market which leads to some type of political balancing that the USGA tries to account for when making decisions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stretch

Well, we've explicitly disqualified data as a means of evaluating the wisdom of this decision, so all we're left with is opinions. And you know what they say about those ...

But there really is no data, is there?  What data exists that speaks directly and relevantly to the issue?

How about the history of 400+ years of swinging all clubs without anchoring?  That should be all the data needed.

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

I really wonder what this is attributed to?  Does Europe feel a greater sense of ownership of the original intent and nobility of the game since it originated over there?  Do the OEM manufacturers have more influence in the American market which leads to some type of political balancing that the USGA tries to account for when making decisions?

That is interesting.  I think Europeans tends to be more accepting of regulation than in the United States.  Its a generalization, of course, but perhaps that explains the difference some.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

How about the history of 400+ years of swinging all clubs without anchoring?  That should be all the data needed.

I see your point, but I'm speaking specifically about statistical data.  I inferred from Stretch's post that there was statistical data somewhere that proved that anchoring shouldn't be banned...presumably about it not providing an advantage.

I suspect you got that, but I'm just clarifying.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

How about the history of 400+ years of swinging all clubs without anchoring?  That should be all the data needed.

I see your point, but I'm speaking specifically about statistical data.  I inferred from Stretch's post that there was statistical data somewhere that proved that anchoring shouldn't be banned...presumably about it not providing an advantage.

I suspect you got that, but I'm just clarifying.

It would be impossible to have statistical data for an a non-quantitative issue.  This is simply a question of maintaining the traditional golf stroke, and no quantitative data is needed, or in fact, is even possible.  If it was truly a performance issue, then a request for empirical data would be reasonable, but it essentially comes down to aesthetics and historical practice, and that isn't measurable.

[Stretch]

Erik and a few others posted (way back in the thread) some detailed explanations of why they feel it doesn't matter whether there's any actual evidence to prove that anchoring affords an unfair advantage. I strongly disagree with them on that point, and that's about it.

My personal bias is always going to be in favor of greater personal freedom of choice unless that choice harms someone else. And please show me some actual harm -- you don't just get to claim it's "clearly" against natural law, the will of God or Bobby Jones's dying wish.

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Kind of reminds me of the NFL with the addition of instant replay and the invention of HD TV.  Prior to those two, the definition of a catch needed to be nothing more than "a catch."  You either caught the ball or you didn't, plain and simple.  But now that they have the ability to see super clearly frame by frame what happens, it's extremely important that the definition of a catch take up ten pages in the rule book.  (I'm sure it's not quite 10 pages, but sometimes hyperbole is fun ;))

This drives me crazy.  I don't even know what it means to catch a ball anymore.

Originally Posted by Vic Uroda

there was no problem with long putters until King tiger could not win any mayors.

Gotta love the guys who sign up just to post something like this!

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/european-tour-will-support-anchored-putting-ban-leaving-pga-tour-odd-man-out

This article makes a lot of good points, but the primary one being that Finchem is basically just covering his bases, as a corporate politician must. He's asking the USGA to back off on the ban, but knows that the Tour would never be able to stand alone (and also knows that there's no reason to make a lot of waves when the majority of Tour players probably either support the ban or don't care either way), so will probably not fight it with any stronger statements or actions than that.  That appeases the anchorers in the Tour, to whom he can say "Hey, I tried".

I think this is dead-on.

Originally Posted by Fourputt

How about the history of 400+ years of swinging all clubs without anchoring?  That should be all the data needed.

Great point!

Originally Posted by Stretch

Erik and a few others posted (way back in the thread) some detailed explanations of why they feel it doesn't matter whether there's any actual evidence to prove that anchoring affords an unfair advantage. I strongly disagree with them on that point, and that's about it.

Strange...the first time I read this I could have sworn there was another sentence at the end....

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Stretch

Erik and a few others posted (way back in the thread) some detailed explanations of why they feel it doesn't matter whether there's any actual evidence to prove that anchoring affords an unfair advantage. I strongly disagree with them on that point, and that's about it.

My personal bias is always going to be in favor of greater personal freedom of choice unless that choice harms someone else. And please show me some actual harm -- you don't just get to claim it's "clearly" against natural law, the will of God or Bobby Jones's dying wish.

It doesn't matter because that isn't the point of the proposed change.  It is entirely irrelevant whether or not any advantage is involved at all.  Performance isn't even mentioned in the proposal.

[Stretch]

There certainly was another sentence on the end, but I thought better of it. We are at the point now where no one is going to change their mind on this issue and all it does is cause bad feelings. I avoid the few, bullshit political threads around here for this very reason and think I'm going to stay out of this one, too, from now on.

PS: It does matter. Crap, there I go again.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Stretch

There certainly was another sentence on the end, but I thought better of it. We are at the point now where no one is going to change their mind on this issue and all it does is cause bad feelings. I avoid the few, bullshit political threads around here for this very reason and think I'm going to stay out of this one, too, from now on.

PS: It does matter. Crap, there I go again.

Okay, it matters to you, but it doesn't matter to the USGA or to the R&A;, and that's all that really counts.

[Stretch]

Woop woop. And in a world where we don't have to substantiate anything at all, you're a ****ing idiot and the USGA are ****ing idiots and R&A; are ****ing idiots. Because I say so, and that's all that really counts.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Stretch

Woop woop. And in a world where we don't have to substantiate anything at all, you're a ****ing idiot and the USGA are ****ing idiots and R&A; are ****ing idiots. Because I say so, and that's all that really counts.

Stretch, I'm totally with you in that I like to see substantiation where it's appropriate. I just don't share your opinion when you imply that the USGA and R&A; should be required to substantiate *their* opinion that the game of golf should be played with a non-anchored swing. Their primary role is to define the rules of a game, which are arbitrary by definition. This is one area where "because we say so" is the only justification needed. So I totally support your right to think it's a dumb decision, but don't agree with your stance that it needs to be substantiated. (For what that's worth, which is probably very little.)

It's like someone said a while ago: A slingshot may afford no advantage to getting a golf ball around a course, but it doesn't mean it belongs in the game. The USGA and R&A; exist to make such arbitrary decisions. (I know, analogies usually suck and that one prob does as well, but it's all I got...)

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by Stretch

Woop woop. And in a world where we don't have to substantiate anything at all, you're a ****ing idiot and the USGA are ****ing idiots and R&A; are ****ing idiots. Because I say so, and that's all that really counts.

Well now, tell us how you really feel.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Stretch

Erik and a few others posted (way back in the thread) some detailed explanations of why they feel it doesn't matter whether there's any actual evidence to prove that anchoring affords an unfair advantage. I strongly disagree with them on that point, and that's about it.

"It isn't what we feel a golf stroke or swing should be." That can't be substantiated with "evidence." You might want it to be, but it's an opinion. Not a fact.

Originally Posted by Stretch

My personal bias is always going to be in favor of greater personal freedom of choice unless that choice harms someone else. And please show me some actual harm -- you don't just get to claim it's "clearly" against natural law, the will of God or Bobby Jones's dying wish.

So why can't we push, scrape, or spoon the ball? How about putting side saddle? Let's just let people pool-cue putts in with their putters, too. That's not actually harming someone else, is it?

Sorry Stretch, we're not going to agree on this, and the more you try to back your point the more openings you create.

No need to show "actual harm." In their opinions it's not a golf stroke. That's it. You disagree with them (and with me), but that's all there is to this entire discussion.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

What I found most interesting about that is two things:

1) How many prominent players on the PGA Tour were against the USGA and voiced a very strong annoyance to their decision.

2) How it at least appears that the R&A;, and Europe in general (meaning their Tour & members) seem to take a much more firm stance on matters of preservation of the game, and really don't care about offending their members/constituents.  Read some of the words they use like "crackpot" and "absurd" when describing the use of the alternative putting methods vs the USGA talking about how reluctant they were to ban croquet style putters/putting.

I really wonder what this is attributed to?  Does Europe feel a greater sense of ownership of the original intent and nobility of the game since it originated over there?  Do the OEM manufacturers have more influence in the American market which leads to some type of political balancing that the USGA tries to account for when making decisions?

But there really is no data, is there?  What data exists that speaks directly and relevantly to the issue?

I don't know if this is the answer to your question, but I can tell you this.  After living in England for 5 years (1993-1998) I noticed a huge difference in the "British mentality" compared to us "Yanks" when it comes to preservation of history.

In the States, in almost every city, most of us have noticed that we have little problem tearing down old, historic buildings and converting land to parking garages, office buildings, or shopping malls. There are a few exceptions, but for the most part we don't have as strong of an attachment to history and tradition as the Brits do.  Part of it, I believe, is the fact that OUR traditions, and OUR history dates back only a few hundred years.  English history (and European history, for that matter) dates back thousands of years.  I did a lot of traveling around the U.K. while I was there and it wasn't unusual to find a cathedral, castle, or other structures 500 years old and more sitting next to commercially zoned areas.  They respect their history too much to tear down many of these sites.  In the U.S., I've seen a different approach.  I've seen historic buildings actually dismantled and moved to a "more convenient" location in order to use the land for something more commercially beneficial.

I honestly think this is the main reason they're more willing to accept rules that attempt to restore or at least hold onto history and tradition.  I also think it's one of the reasons the monarchy still exists.  The Royals are figureheads, but I can't see England ever getting rid of them because they're a link to a past of which many Brits are very proud.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

It's like someone said a while ago: A slingshot may afford no advantage to getting a golf ball around a course, but it doesn't mean it belongs in the game. The USGA and R&A; exist to make such arbitrary decisions. (I know, analogies usually suck and that one prob does as well, but it's all I got...)

Or more to the point, what evidence is there that using a putter in the manner of a pool cue, or using a croquet-style stroke confers and advantage?  None that I know of.  Does that mean they should be allowed?

[phan52]

Originally Posted by Stretch

Woop woop. And in a world where we don't have to substantiate anything at all, you're a ****ing idiot and the USGA are ****ing idiots and R&A; are ****ing idiots. Because I say so, and that's all that really counts.

I hope that made you feel better.