Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)

[mvmac]

I'm sure this has been posted already but this is from Mike Davis, when the proposed change was announced.  The USGA's position summed up in a few sentences.

Quote:

Throughout the 600-year history of golf, the essence of playing the game has been to grip the club with the hands and swing it freely at the ball.

The player's challenge is to control the movement of the entire club in striking the ball, and anchoring the club alters the nature of that challenge. Our conclusion is that the Rules of Golf should be amended to preserve the traditional character of the golf swing by eliminating the growing practice of anchoring the club.

Some might counter whether it's in the essence of the game to be swing 460cc titanium drivers, but this isn't a technology issue, it's a stroke issue.

Bob Harig latest article shares some evidence against three of Tim Finchem's key arguments for opposing the ban.  Here's something I didn't know

Quote:

Both in his news conference and on television, Finchem made reference to the governing body taking two separate looks at the issue. But only once has the USGA made a statement regarding long putters, and that came in 1989. It said at the time that long putters were not going to be regulated. The focus then was in equipment, not the stroke, and they said it was more about helping people who had physical ailments like back problems than trying to change how the game is played.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by ay33660

With Finchem throwing down the gauntlet and essentially demanding the USGA and R&A; to back off the ban just because it would affect 20% of his players we now will see who is really in charge of setting the rules, the professional tour associations or the USGA and R&A.;

I for one would be very sad if the PGA Tour ends up winning.

The PGA game looks nothing like my game.

My best drive is at least 100 yards less than their average drive.

The pros can hit a 7 iron 200 plus yards. I would be happy to hit my 140 yards.

The fairways they play on will run faster than my greens.

Their sand traps are perfectly raked and are consistent from trap to trap.

If my fellow playing partners adopted their pre shot routines our rounds would regularly exceed 5 hours.

They have a caddie to talk them out of the miracle shot .... my playing partners will goat me into it.

For the good of the game, I really hope the USGA and the R&A; don't back down.

Originally Posted by inthehole

couldn't agree more.

I'm honestly happy this is the closest to lock-outs and players strikes as we get in golf.

That's a road I hope we never go down.

[ejimsmith]

allow me to keep my belly putter anchored to my belly, and I'll remain happy.

good for the PGA to protest the rules change.  boo to the people that "just don't like it".   and a big boo to those that protest gay marriage (some of you are real god-damn bigots!).

[Stretch]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Good.  Now if Finchem wants to sell the game out, he'll have to do so on an island.  It's getting really sad and pathetic listening to these guys turn into politicians with their talking points that are illogical and based on straw men arguments.

I love how the position of absolute moral certainty that you operate from informs your view of anyone who doesn't share your convictions. They must be denigrated -- "sell out", "politicians" etc. -- and their positions may simply be dismissed out of hand -- "sad", "pathetic", "illogical", "straw men" -- without the inconvenience of actually engaging in debate. This is pretty much exactly what I meant by the previous comment you found so beneath me.

Let's look at this logically. The PGA Players Advisory Council and Policy Council are politicians, in the sense that they are elected to represent the views of the rest of the Tour's members. They polled those members and found that the "overwhelming majority" (according to Steve Stricker) of them were opposed to the ban. Following generally-accepted democratic principles, they reported this up to the Tour's executive branch, personified by Finchem, who then presented their position to the USGA, which had asked all interested parties to do exactly this in the first place.

The fact that you're able to conclude from this that Finchem and the US pros are all sleazy douchebags says a lot more about you than them.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Golfer

I guess at the end of the day this feels like a power play by the USGA and the R&A; and i just don't like it. We (the golf industry) need members and numbers to grow and this doesn't help. If the ruling body wants to help the game lets get more people involved in the growth of it and leave this silly arguement to a time when golf courses are full, being built, prcies are going up and people are running to a part of the game...then if you lose 2 or 3 percent of your potential golfers it won't matter.

I frankly can't understand this line of reasoning, that it is a "power play". I just don't think there is anything to be gained by picking fights. The USGA has been looking at this for years and they finally have come to the conclusion that it is intrinsically different from the fundamentals of the swing. Could they have come to this conclusion earlier? Absolutely. But I hardly think they are trying to push he buttons of people who disagree or have anything against the Webb Simpsons of the world.

And the idea that amateurs are going to quit golf because they can't acnhor their putter is ludicrous.

[Lefty-Golfer]

Originally Posted by phan52

I frankly can't understand this line of reasoning, that it is a "power play". I just don't think there is anything to be gained by picking fights. The USGA has been looking at this for years and they finally have come to the conclusion that it is intrinsically different from the fundamentals of the swing. Could they have come to this conclusion earlier? Absolutely. But I hardly think they are trying to push he buttons of people who disagree or have anything against the Webb Simpsons of the world.

And the idea that amateurs are going to quit golf because they can't acnhor their putter is ludicrous.

i disagree with the bolded, i think they have been aware of it but saw no reason to deal with it, i think the saw it as an inferior stroke that would go away eventually. in the mean time they had no problem with it. all of the sudden Simpson, Bradley Els win majors with it - Els makes some comment about cheating like all of the others and here we are.

I thing it is obvious they have a problem with all of the players using long putters or they wouldn't have changed the rule - wait sorry redefined the rule. I am willing to bet those old timers that started this awesome game didn't wear gloves when they played maybe we should ban them... the whole thing is garbage, there many items bigger for them to worry about then an anchored putter.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter to me or change my life one bit, i am going to stick my 28" putter and continue to love it.

it does amaze me how many people just drink the kool-aid

[mchepp]

good for the PGA to protest the rules change.

The PGA Tour is going to find out that they have less power than they think in my opinion. Consider that if the Masters adopts the USGAs rules, then 3 of the 4 majors are going to be no anchor events. I think that moves the 20% down to about 5-10%, because most of those 20% want to play in the majors (and win) and they are not going to switch back for 3 tournaments. They will just realize it is easier to make the switch for the long term. I don't understand why the PGA Tour would fight this. I think it opens them up to look bad if the Masters goes with the USGA which is likely to happen. The PGA of America is a bit of a different story because they can push for bifurcation for us wannabe's.

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by mchepp

The PGA Tour is going to find out that they have less power than they think in my opinion. Consider that if the Masters adopts the USGAs rules, then 3 of the 4 majors are going to be no anchor events. I think that moves the 20% down to about 5-10%, because most of those 20% want to play in the majors (and win) and they are not going to switch back for 3 tournaments. They will just realize it is easier to make the switch for the long term.

I don't understand why the PGA Tour would fight this. I think it opens them up to look bad if the Masters goes with the USGA which is likely to happen. The PGA of America is a bit of a different story because they can push for bifurcation for us wannabe's.

That assumes that the USGA/R&A; don't back down.

[meenman]

Originally Posted by mchepp

The PGA Tour is going to find out that they have less power than they think in my opinion. Consider that if the Masters adopts the USGAs rules, then 3 of the 4 majors are going to be no anchor events. I think that moves the 20% down to about 5-10%, because most of those 20% want to play in the majors (and win) and they are not going to switch back for 3 tournaments. They will just realize it is easier to make the switch for the long term.

I don't understand why the PGA Tour would fight this. I think it opens them up to look bad if the Masters goes with the USGA which is likely to happen. The PGA of America is a bit of a different story because they can push for bifurcation for us wannabe's.

The PGA tour fights it because:

#1 The represent their members, not the R+A, not the USGA and not the anchored putter haters

#2 Because they can.

The PGA tour has nothing to lose here, if the USGA does not back down, it risks it's own relevancy.

There's a lot of *if's* in your statement - no one knows what the masters is going to do yet and you have no idea what the pro golfers are going to do.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by meenman

The PGA tour fights it because:

#1 The represent their members, not the R+A, not the USGA and not the anchored putter haters

#2 Because they can.

The PGA tour has nothing to lose here, if the USGA does not back down, it risks it's own relevancy.

There's a lot of *if's* in your statement - no one knows what the masters is going to do yet and you have no idea what the pro golfers are going to do.

I question anyone's motive if they fight something "just because they can".

Reminds me of people who argue, no matter what their stance on an issue, just because they can.

That is NOT a trait to be proud of.

[bplewis24]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ay33660

For the good of the game, I really hope the USGA and the R&A; don't back down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by inthehole

couldn't agree more.

Add me to the list.  But of course this makes me a blind jerk.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stretch

I love how the position of absolute moral certainty that you operate from informs your view of anyone who doesn't share your convictions. They must be denigrated -- "sell out", "politicians" etc. -- and their positions may simply be dismissed out of hand -- "sad", "pathetic", "illogical", "straw men" -- without the inconvenience of actually engaging in debate. This is pretty much exactly what I meant by the previous comment you found so beneath me.

Let's look at this logically. The PGA Players Advisory Council and Policy Council are politicians, in the sense that they are elected to represent the views of the rest of the Tour's members. They polled those members and found that the "overwhelming majority" (according to Steve Stricker) of them were opposed to the ban. Following generally-accepted democratic principles, they reported this up to the Tour's executive branch, personified by Finchem, who then presented their position to the USGA, which had asked all interested parties to do exactly this in the first place.

The fact that you're able to conclude from this that Finchem and the US pros are all sleazy douchebags says a lot more about you than them.

Okay, I'll call your bluff now that you want to try to stand on the moral high ground.  First, I'll point out that I've "engag[ed]" in the debate longer than this thread has existed, and my arguments are pretty much public knowledge in that anybody can search for them and read them.  They stand on merit, not how gently they are or aren't worded.  You can pretend that I've not engaged the debate all you want, but you and I both know that isn't true.  Pretending that I have to re-state my opinion and argument every single time I post is disingenuous and reeks of an agenda.   But considering that you already knew that, I'll play along with this charade and go ahead and have whatever debate you want to have about this topic as if it hasn't been stated and either accepted, refuted and/or ignored already.

Let's start with your "logic."  You can assume the politicians (which is a denigration when I use it, but not when you use it apparently) are operating with an altruistic motive if you so choose, but to pretend that that is the only logical conclusion is naive at best.  It's one of the possible/likely scenarios, but certainly no reasonable person would claim it's the only one nor the most likely, given all other circumstances that you are apparently willing to either ignore or ascribe no importance to.

Now, please, lay out the rest of your argument so that we can have this honorable debate that you clearly want to have which is free from straw men and illogical analogies that are later backed away from.  I'll be waiting to respond in kind, with merit.  Afterwards you can get emotional, defensive and question my character all you want.

Let's start from here:

Quote:

Throughout the 600-year history of golf, the essence of playing the game has been to grip the club with the hands and swing it freely at the ball.

The player's challenge is to control the movement of the entire club in striking the ball, and anchoring the club alters the nature of that challenge. Our conclusion is that the Rules of Golf should be amended to preserve the traditional character of the golf swing by eliminating the growing practice of anchoring the club.

Lay out exactly why you either disagree with this or feel it isn't relevant.

[meenman]

Originally Posted by dave67az

I question anyone's motive if they fight something "just because they can".

Reminds me of people who argue, no matter what their stance on an issue, just because they can.

That is NOT a trait to be proud of.

Once again, you choose to pull out what suits you. You and I can also send a letter to the USGA, I am still a member, so I did.

The misconception at this point is that the PGA is *fighting* the (proposed) ban.

At this point they are stating their disagreement - nothing else has been said / threatened / inferred.

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by meenman

The misconception at this point is that the PGA is *fighting* the (proposed) ban.

At this point they are stating their disagreement - nothing else has been said / threatened / inferred.

I agree with this (and your avatar).  Didn't the USGA "propose" a rule and ask for input?  The PGA gave its opinion and when asked whether it would follow the USGA or not, Finchem said that he didn't want to answer that because it was inflammatory.

Short of agreeing with it, or refusing to participate, what else could the PGA have done that would not be viewed as "flexing its muscle"

[Mordan]

Originally Posted by dsc123

I agree with this (and your avatar).  Didn't the USGA "propose" a rule and ask for input?  The PGA gave its opinion and when asked whether it would follow the USGA or not, Finchem said that he didn't want to answer that because it was inflammatory.

Short of agreeing with it, or refusing to participate, what else could the PGA have done that would not be viewed as "flexing its muscle"

It's the veiled threat to start playing by their own rules if they don't get their way that has annoyed me.

[Rulesman]

Originally Posted by meenman

At this point they are stating their disagreement - nothing else has been inferred.

Some here have inferred something the PGA Tour did not imply.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Golfer

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

I frankly can't understand this line of reasoning, that it is a "power play". I just don't think there is anything to be gained by picking fights. The USGA has been looking at this for years and they finally have come to the conclusion that it is intrinsically different from the fundamentals of the swing. Could they have come to this conclusion earlier? Absolutely. But I hardly think they are trying to push he buttons of people who disagree or have anything against the Webb Simpsons of the world.

And the idea that amateurs are going to quit golf because they can't acnhor their putter is ludicrous.

i disagree with the bolded, i think they have been aware of it but saw no reason to deal with it, i think the saw it as an inferior stroke that would go away eventually. in the mean time they had no problem with it. all of the sudden Simpson, Bradley Els win majors with it - Els makes some comment about cheating like all of the others and here we are.

I thing it is obvious they have a problem with all of the players using long putters or they wouldn't have changed the rule - wait sorry redefined the rule. I am willing to bet those old timers that started this awesome game didn't wear gloves when they played maybe we should ban them... the whole thing is garbage, there many items bigger for them to worry about then an anchored putter.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter to me or change my life one bit, i am going to stick my 28" putter and continue to love it.

it does amaze me how many people just drink the kool-aid

As you are doing taking the PGA side.  Just a different flavor.

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by Mordan

It's the veiled threat to start playing by their own rules if they don't get their way that has annoyed me.

If you were running the PGA Tour, and the USGA asked for your opinion, what would you have said?

[ay33660]

Originally Posted by dsc123

Short of agreeing with it, or refusing to participate, what else could the PGA have done that would not be viewed as "flexing its muscle"

One way would be when Finchem was asked if the USGA did go thru with the ban and instead and answering with a we will deal with that when it happens, he could have unequivocally stated that, while the PGA disagree with the ban, the USGA and the R&A; are the bodies that define the rules of golf and the PGA will abide by their decisions.

Instead he went on his diatribe of how this is a disagreement among friends ... blah blah blah.