Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogolf

Well, imo, just because they play for millions, instead of a $2 nassau, doesn't mean their opinion matters more than everyone else.

I may disagree with them, but I do think their opinion matters more than the average person or even the average golfer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stretch

A different perspective. Pretty strong stuff from an industry big hitter!

http://scoregolf.com/blog/rick-young/2013/january/taking-a-stand

I read the entire thing and the only reason he offered for the USGA becoming "obsolete" in 10 years is a subjective one about them being on the "outside".  His earlier reasoning about why the ruling is wrong is just another straw-man argument that has been debunked over and over.  There is really nothing strong about that interview and the guy comes off as hurting his credibility on the subject because the rest of it is speculation based on uncertainty and fear, straight out of a political strategists playbook.

All I see from that is that he wants to be the dictator instead of the dictated, and that desire is as usual driven by the bottom line.  He's a businessman, and just like Solheim, that prevents him from seeing any other viewpoint.  He's after the unlimited right to destroy the game of golf by putting out virtually any equipment he wants to without restrictions.  He says it's for the player, but the reality is that he can't see anything past the dollar signs in his eyes.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Stretch

A different perspective. Pretty strong stuff from an industry big hitter!

http://scoregolf.com/blog/rick-young/2013/january/taking-a-stand

This guy, if he has his way, will kill golf.  Something else, loosely related to golf will follow, but golf will be dead.  Because making money became more important than the game.  And so, as we now do in so many areas of life, he wants to dumb it down to accommodate the lowest common denominator for purely selfish reasons.

Frankly I see almost no value to the average golfer in the obsession to "grow the game",  The "grow the game" guys are primarily the guys who make money off the game and THAT is their motivation.  Why should I or any other average golfer care if the game grows or not???

[CanuckAaron]

Originally Posted by turtleback

This guy, if he has his way, will kill golf.  Something else, loosely related to golf will follow, but golf will be dead.  Because making money became more important than the game.  And so, as we now do in so many areas of life, he wants to dumb it down to accommodate the lowest common denominator for purely selfish reasons.

Frankly I see almost no value to the average golfer in the obsession to "grow the game",  The "grow the game" guys are primarily the guys who make money off the game and THAT is their motivation.  Why should I or any other average golfer care if the game grows or not???

I think maybe he realizes the writing is on the wall about the USGA coming after drivers next and this is his attempt to quell any momentum the USGA may get from banning anchoring.

If they really wanted to grow the game they could make it cheaper so that more people would have the opportunity to play on a regular basis. When you consider the price of clubs and green fees it is insane compared to what a soccer ball and a one time league fee costs or better yet an open field and a few trees as goal posts.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by CanuckAaron

I think maybe he realizes the writing is on the wall about the USGA coming after drivers next and this is his attempt to quell any momentum the USGA may get from banning anchoring.

That's the first I've heard of this.  Is this well-known information?

[jgreen85]

Golf is the only sport that has such a powerful equipment industry around it and this industry has led to some sub-optimal results as of late. Golf courses being longer and more expensive (maintenance). It'll be good to see something done to shorten the courses. I don't know how they would do this, but it'd be the single biggest boon to the courses and teaching pros. Edit. And of course the taylormade guy is bitching. His company is all about longer, longer, longer (which works). Bridgestone advertises the anti-side spin and different ball flight characteristics, so there's plenty of room for innovation that could actually make the game easier.

[CanuckAaron]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

That's the first I've heard of this.  Is this well-known information?

I have heard a few people suggest it -  USGA articles, golf analysts but nobody has actually come out and said we are going to put restrictions on drivers....yet -  and it seems to me that they need to do something about course length. I do not know how much land it takes to build a 7600 yard course but I have no doubt that it is a lot and it just is not realistic to keep building longer courses especially when you consider water consumption etc.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by CanuckAaron

I have heard a few people suggest it -  USGA articles, golf analysts but nobody has actually come out and said we are going to put restrictions on drivers....yet -  and it seems to me that they need to do something about course length. I do not know how much land it takes to build a 7600 yard course but I have no doubt that it is a lot and it just is not realistic to keep building longer courses especially when you consider water consumption etc.

For the record I am in favor of driver restrictions.  I'm looking for a new driver this year and the size of those things just irritates me.  I just hadn't heard anything yet (although I took the last few months off of any golf news).  But driver restrictions seems like it would be a much bigger undertaking.

Then again, it means the manufacturers get to sell a lot of new drivers to replace the illegal ones, right?

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanuckAaron

I have heard a few people suggest it -  USGA articles, golf analysts but nobody has actually come out and said we are going to put restrictions on drivers....yet -  and it seems to me that they need to do something about course length. I do not know how much land it takes to build a 7600 yard course but I have no doubt that it is a lot and it just is not realistic to keep building longer courses especially when you consider water consumption etc.

For the record I am in favor of driver restrictions.  I'm looking for a new driver this year and the size of those things just irritates me.  I just hadn't heard anything yet (although I took the last few months off of any golf news).  But driver restrictions seems like it would be a much bigger undertaking.

Then again, it means the manufacturers get to sell a lot of new drivers to replace the illegal ones, right?

It would have to be like the groove issue though, with a delayed implementation, or the guys who just bought those $500 drivers will scream bloody murder.

[CanuckAaron]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

It would have to be like the groove issue though, with a delayed implementation, or the guys who just bought those $500 drivers will scream bloody murder.

Yes it would but I also have a feeling it would only apply to future drivers and the limits would be the standard of the current drivers. They would not allow them to get any bigger etc. It is too late to actually go backward.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

For the record I am in favor of driver restrictions.  I'm looking for a new driver this year and the size of those things just irritates me.  I just hadn't heard anything yet (although I took the last few months off of any golf news).  But driver restrictions seems like it would be a much bigger undertaking.

Then again, it means the manufacturers get to sell a lot of new drivers to replace the illegal ones, right?

Originally Posted by CanuckAaron

Yes it would but I also have a feeling it would only apply to future drivers and the limits would be the standard of the current drivers. They would not allow them to get any bigger etc. It is too late to actually go backward.

Uhh, they ALREADY restricted drivers.  460 cc is the limit.  If they do NOTHING there will be no getting bigger.  I have no idea what restrictions you guys are talking about or where these articles and hints are coming from since it already happened years ago.  And there really was very little uproar.

The 460 cc limit was imposed in 2004.

[SCfanatic35]

If golf courses can have local rules regarding the course, can they have local rules allowing the use of certain clubs?

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by SCfanatic35

If golf courses can have local rules regarding the course, can they have local rules allowing the use of certain clubs?

There are no approved local rules which would change the club rules.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Uhh, they ALREADY restricted drivers.  460 cc is the limit.  If they do NOTHING there will be no getting bigger.  I have no idea what restrictions you guys are talking about or where these articles and hints are coming from since it already happened years ago.  And there really was very little uproar.

The 460 cc limit was imposed in 2004.

And that is still too big.  However, I have heard nothing on this as well...which is why I asked the question.

[Stretch]

It's not the driver in the crosshairs, it's the golf ball. King comes right out with it in the interview and says TM will not "roll back the ball" no matter what the USGA does. Pretty sure that was a preemptive shot at something the manufacturers think is quite likely coming down the pike.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Stretch

It's not the driver in the crosshairs, it's the golf ball. King comes right out with it in the interview and says TM will not "roll back the ball" no matter what the USGA does. Pretty sure that was a preemptive shot at something the manufacturers think is quite likely coming down the pike.

Although I'd be in favor of a rollback, I can see his point in this regard.  A lot of R&D; has gone into designing a ball which maximizes distance without sacrificing performance (and the Penta is one of the top performing balls you can buy).To be told now that they have to toss all of that work in the trash and design for underperformance instead would be a slap in the face.  It's a lot different from the long putter which took took no real effort to develop, and isn't that hard to discontinue.

[meenman]

It's not the driver in the crosshairs, it's the golf ball. King comes right out with it in the interview and says TM will not "roll back the ball" no matter what the USGA does. Pretty sure that was a preemptive shot at something the manufacturers think is quite likely coming down the pike.

the companies must be taking this seriously. I was asked fill out a survey this weekend and 1 of the questions was whether or not I would be willing to play a nonconforming ball

[Rulesman]

Another view.

http://www.titleist.com/teamtitleist/b/tourblog/archive/2013/01/21/the-case-for-unification-a-perspective-from-wally-uihlein-ceo-acushnet-company.aspx

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Rulesman

Another view.

http://www.titleist.com/teamtitleist/b/tourblog/archive/2013/01/21/the-case-for-unification-a-perspective-from-wally-uihlein-ceo-acushnet-company.aspx

Great editorial.  I'm keeping that one.