Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)

[meenman]

Originally Posted by ay33660

Interesting choice of players to use as I believe Tiger is for the ban and Phil is against the ban.

Don't know if you meant to do that.

Actually, Tiger has recently softened his stance (to show tour unity?)

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by meenman

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.

I pull out what suits me?  You only made two points in your post.  The first was "the PGA represents their members".  The second was that they are fighting it (your words, not mine) "because they can".

I still stand by my statement.  If they're fighting simply because it's their right to fight, then it reeks of immaturity.  In fact, I think you've grossly misrepresented why the PGA is indeed fighting the ban on anchoring.  It has nothing to do with simply a right to do so.  That may be HOW they can fight it, but it certainly isn't WHY.

They've stated why they disagree with the USGA.  It's because the PGA members whom they represent don't think the ban is in the best interest of golf.

Sometimes by over-simplifying as you have done, you make their stance seem trivial.

That'd be like me saying that the only reason you argue with opposing stances on here is because you can.

People don't exercise free speech simply because they can.  They do it to express a point of view with the hopes that others will understand and support their position.  Do you really need this explained to you, as you've made it seem?

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by meenman

Quote:

Originally Posted by ay33660

Interesting choice of players to use as I believe Tiger is for the ban and Phil is against the ban.

Don't know if you meant to do that.

Actually, Tiger has recently softened his stance (to show tour unity?)

Or bowing to sponsor pressure.  We will probably never know, so it' isn't really worth debating.  He was in favor, now he's neutral.  His latest comments didn't exactly show wholehearted approval of the Tour's position.

[iacas]

I propose we ban anyone who says PGA when they mean PGA Tour.

Originally Posted by meenman

Now let's see if the USGA was truthful and really takes all the comments into account.

You don't know what that means. They could say "we heard all the comments, and we decided to institute the proposed rules change."

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I believe the PGA Tour has sent a letter to the USGA stating their position given they were asked for input.  Finchem is being respectful towards the USGA and giving them plenty of room to reconsider their decision without losing face.

Why do you think the USGA would "lose face"? If they institute the proposed rule will they have "lost face"?

Originally Posted by newtogolf

If the USGA didn't want the PGA Tour to disagree they shouldn't have asked for input after making their decision public.

Who has said they didn't want comments? They asked for them.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

At this point it's up to the USGA to decide if the anchored putting stroke is worth getting into a media battle with the PGA Tour over (that's what it will come down to).

Why? Once they decide, it might just fizzle out. You don't know that it will come down to a "media battle."

Originally Posted by newtogolf

No one pays to watch the USGA or pays for the rights to broadcast USGA meetings.  The average person that might watch golf probably doesn't know or care who the USGA is, but they know who Tiger Woods and Phil Michelson are and that's who they will side with.

Uh, they pay to watch the U.S. Open. They pay to have a handicap. They pay and many play in USGA events - the U.S. Am, etc. They belong to their local golf associations (and their golf courses likely belong too). They do research on turf grass, greens, and so on.

The USGA does a *wee* bit more than have meetings.

[turtleback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NM Golf

Really, are you serious? Perhaps some reading glasses or instruction are in order?!

Quote:

This is very similiar to the fight faced by the LGBT community as they try to gain the right to marry. Banning something based completely on aesthetics and not evidence just seems antiquated and wrong to me.

Yeah, "very similar to" and "nearly equated" are nothing alike.  No parallels being drawn here.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by 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!).

Who has protested gay marriage in this thread?

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by dsc123

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

"A substantial number of our members oppose the new rule.  We think you should rethink it and find a way to allow people who have used the method to continue using the method.  However, whether or not you modify the rule we will continue, as we always have, to conduct PGATour sponsored events under the Rules of Golf."

Without that final sentence the PGA is making a veiled threat, IMO.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by turtleback

"A substantial number of our members oppose the new rule.  We think you should rethink it and find a way to allow people who have used the method to continue using the method.  However, whether or not you modify the rule we will continue, as we always have, to conduct PGATour sponsored events under the Rules of Golf."

Without that final sentence the PGA is making a veiled threat, IMO.

Am I the only one who reads this as though the PGA Tour is simply asking for those who currently use the method to be grandfathered in?

[NM Golf]

Originally Posted by bigwave916

Good grief.....can you not take a joke in the midst of all this?  You call this a debate?  Same stuff over and over again in fifty pages. Some of you must sit at home at try to sort the fly shit out of the pepper shaker.

Originally Posted by bigwave916

Went around school bullying the smart kids? The sad thing is that you aren't aware how you look to everyone else.  It was a joke.  Good grief, how many times must you guys go over the same points and counter points and silly analogies.  Unbelievable, 50 pages and you haven't solved a thing but to try to one-up each other, most of the time spouting opinion and facts unsubstantiated. Not everyone, mind you, but quite a few.

And yet you still feel the need to comment again and babble on. This is a golf forum and this is a thread about a very controversial topic. If you want to tell jokes, then go HERE . If you don't enjoy the topic then don't read the posts and for god's sake PLEASE don't post stupid replies that don't add anything to the discussion.

Crap now I am making posts that don't add anything to the discussion.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by dave67az

Am I the only one who reads this as though the PGA Tour is simply asking for those who currently use the method to be grandfathered in?

Actually, now that you mention it, I think it could totally be taken that way.  What does everybody think of that possibility?  At first thought, it seems like a potential mess to me ... but maybe it's a good compromise?  I don't know.

[SCfanatic35]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Actually, now that you mention it, I think it could totally be taken that way.  What does everybody think of that possibility?  At first thought, it seems like a potential mess to me ... but maybe it's a good compromise?  I don't know.

If they did grandfather it in, how would they decide who gets to use it and who doesn't? Is it anyone who was anchoring on tour before the decision, anyone competing on the tour before the decision?  IMO if you grandfather something in how does it make it fair, if they deem it illegal for future people but it is OK for you. I originally thought that grandfathering it in would be a good idea but now that I have thought about it for awhile I don't like it.  If for some reason Phil decided to switch to an achoring method he couldn't because he wasn't doing it before.  Not sure how that is fair, but then again not sure how it is fair to take something away after it's been OK.  IMO, if they deem it illegal it should be everyone.

[NM Golf]

Originally Posted by dave67az

Am I the only one who reads this as though the PGA Tour is simply asking for those who currently use the method to be grandfathered in?

Talk about opening a can of worms. No way could they grandfather in these players. This is how it will go down...The USGA isn't going to back down and they will institute the ban on January 1, 2016. The PGA Tour will abide by the ruling because it is the right thing to do. Players on the Tour currently using anchored putters will switch to non-anchored strokes and they will be fine or they will go the way of the buffalo. New stars will come in, other players will disappear. Its not like someone on Tour has never vanished like a fart in the wind before, anyone remember David Duval?

And poor me I will grudgingly switch back to my normal length putter, but it will at least give me a good reason to buy a new club.

I really don't see this as any kind of power play, I don't see any ulterior motives by anyone is this argument. We have a difference in opinion as to what is best for the game and nothing more. One side thinks anchoring the putter is bad, the other side doesn't, its as simple as that. I disagree completely with the USGA, but I am not so blind that I can't see whats ultimately going to happen.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by SCfanatic35

If they did grandfather it in, how would they decide who gets to use it and who doesn't? Is it anyone who was anchoring on tour before the decision, anyone competing on the tour before the decision?  IMO if you grandfather something in how does it make it fair, if they deem it illegal for future people but it is OK for you. I originally thought that grandfathering it in would be a good idea but now that I have thought about it for awhile I don't like it.  If for some reason Phil decided to switch to an achoring method he couldn't because he wasn't doing it before.  Not sure how that is fair, but then again not sure how it is fair to take something away after it's been OK.  IMO, if they deem it illegal it should be everyone.

Lots of options here.  None of them are simple.  None of them would probably be well-received.  And I honestly don't see the USGA doing ANY of them.  Having said that...

They could grandfather in everyone who had used an anchored putter in a majority of events in which they entered in 2012.  That's fairly simple to figure out, right?

Keep in mind, the reason they're banning it is because they want to clarify what a legal stroke is, and the anchored stroke doesn't fit that definition.  It isn't because they think it provides any advantage (even though many have stated that it indeed does eliminate the "yips" which many feel is integral to the game).  Nevertheless, this is not the USGA's argument.  So as for it being "fair", I guess someone would have to provide data that proves anchored putting provides an advantage before you could even begin to discuss how it's unfair to allow grandfathering.  We've discussed some of that data on this thread, but I personally haven't seen anything compelling other than testimonials from players who themselves admit that they improved their putting with an anchored stroke (something I seriously doubt...I'm betting it was just that they focused more on their practice because they were changing their stroke).

But the backlash that the anchored putters will face over the next few years before the ban goes into effect is NOTHING compared to the backlash those players would experience were they to be grandfathered in.  A nightmare in the making.  I seriously doubt anyone wants that.  If I used an anchored stroke, the added distraction knowing how I was viewed by the fans and some other players would outweigh any benefits I might gain by sticking to my guns and continuing to anchor.

I agree with you...if it's illegal, it needs to be across the board with no grandfathering.

But the wording of that statement still sounds odd to me.  And from my experience, official statements like that are usually gone over with a fine-toothed comb before they hit the media.

[Chas]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Many of us have said that we almost never see anchorers out there on the course ... and I'm in that group.  To be fair, though, I think we can really only be talking about people who are either A) playing in our foursome, or B) playing with a broomstick.  Belly putters are pretty darn hard to see at a distance because the putting stroke looks the same, and those seem to be the ones on the trend up.

While I would still contend that the number of users out there is very, very small, maybe it's not quite as small as I was originally thinking.  I've never seen a belly putter being used on the course is probably not a true statement.  I should revise it to I've never noticed one being used.

That's a good point.  I must restrict my previous anecdotal observation to the use of anchored long putters only.  There could be hordes of belly anchorers here in San Diego County and I wouldn't have a clue .....

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by Chas

That's a good point.  I must restrict my previous anecdotal observation to the use of anchored long putters only.  There could be hordes of belly anchorers here in San Diego County and I wouldn't have a clue .....

I thought I saw an anchored putter once, but it was just Craig Stadler.

[Chas]

rotflmao

[Chas]

Originally Posted by NM Golf

Crap now I am making posts that don't add anything to the discussion.

Au contraire.  That was one of the most pertinent posts in this thread.

No, we aren't going to 'solve' anything, as someone has criticized us for failing to do, but lots of interesting thoughts in the debate are being expressed here.  Along with some pretty entertaining irrelevant ones.

Carry on chaps .....

[Rulesman]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/golf/9896089/Rory-McIlroy-backs-RandA-and-US-PGA-over-their-controversial-proposal-to-ban-belly-putters.html