Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)

[Rulesman]

An interesting asrticle.

http://digitalmag.globalgolfpost.com/ggp20130311/20130311#&pageSet;=22&page;=0

[phan52]

Originally Posted by meenman

You will notice that I never mentioned attendance or *local* tv ratings.

National tv wants the AL east. 100 share in Milwaukee still brings in less cash than a 10 share in New York.

The 10 share in NY is also a "local" rating. And if more people are watching the Yankees, it's not because of the DH, something that casual fans probably don't even understand. It's because it's the Yankees, who people either love or hate.

But the vast majority of MLB fans are not going to stop watching baseball this season when the Yankees suck (they will be watching thier team), just like people who want to take up golf are not going to blow it off because they can't anchor their putter. It only really matters to people who are stil going to play and watch regardless.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Rulesman

An interesting asrticle.

http://digitalmag.globalgolfpost.com/ggp20130311/20130311#&pageSet;=22&page;=0

Thank you for that article.  I love the comment "no one in Great Britain looks forward to a day when the rules of golf are made by an American businessman", referring to Tim Finchem.  The odd thing is that I could ask many of those same questions at my home muni in Denver and get much the same sort of answers.

[turtleback]

For those who have advanced the Tim Clark physical disability argument, Tim was on Golf Central tonight and I found out some things I had not known before.  He was an All-American in college - using a short putter.  His congenital condition doesn't make it impossible for him to putt with a short putter.  It doesn't even cause him pain to putt with a short putter.   He characterized it as discomfort and said it was hard to putt with the muscles in the arm tense, which apparently is what happens.  He also said he wouold never allow himself to be in a position where he was the only guy out thee using it.  Based on that I think we can forget about an ADA lawsuit from him.

Adam Scott hedged his bets on legal action saying that at this point it would be hypothetical.  I'm not sure what grounds for suit he might think he potentially has.

They also said that they had thought that the EuroTour was going to support the PGATour position and they were surprised when the EuroTour came out in support of the ban.

[Rulesman]

The ET had always said it was not against it.

[meenman]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I love the comment "no one in Great Britain looks forward to a day when the rules of golf are made by an American businessman", referring to Tim Finchem.

I dont want some foreigner making my golf rules either - but it is all irrelevant in the end - the decision has long been made.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by meenman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I love the comment "no one in Great Britain looks forward to a day when the rules of golf are made by an American businessman", referring to Tim Finchem.

I dont want some foreigner making my golf rules either - but it is all irrelevant in the end - the decision has long been made.

I don't want any businessman making such decisions when his primary motivation is profit.

[meenman]

I don't want [U] any [/U] businessman making such decisions when his primary motivation is profit.

Profit is what makes the world go round. Without a profit, there would be no PGA Tour. If this country has been run by true businessmen, we may not be in the mess we are in.

[meenman]

(double post - damn phone)

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by meenman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I don't want any businessman making such decisions when his primary motivation is profit.

Profit is what makes the world go round. Without a profit, there would be no PGA Tour. If this country has been run by true businessmen, we may not be in the mess we are in.

I'm not talking about making the world go round.  I'm talking about the rules for a game.  The traditions of the game of golf is what is being addressed, not the global economy.

The PGA Tour has been living the good life for a few years now without interfering in rules development, so they don't need to be starting now.  Previous rule changes have done nothing to weaken their financial position.   This rule will do nothing to change that.

[meenman]

I'm not talking about making the world go round.  I'm talking about the rules for a game.  The traditions of the game of golf is what is being addressed, not the global economy. The PGA Tour has been living the good life for a few years now without interfering in rules development, so they don't need to be starting now.  Previous rule changes have done nothing to weaken their financial position.   This rule will do nothing to change that.

But remember, if the PGA Tour was not profitable neither you nor I would be able to afford a round of golf. Plus we would never have met these fine folks on the sand trap!

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I'm not talking about making the world go round.  I'm talking about the rules for a game.  The traditions of the game of golf is what is being addressed, not the global economy.

The PGA Tour has been living the good life for a few years now without interfering in rules development, so they don't need to be starting now.  Previous rule changes have done nothing to weaken their financial position.   This rule will do nothing to change that.

Some speculation here, but I don't think this rule change came from the USGA, I think it was forced on them from the R&A.;  The USGA went along because their only other choice would be to have two sets of rules and they wanted to avoid going back to that.

Strawman argument warning:

What happens if the R&A; decides that golf clubs and balls are out pacing THEIR golf courses and they decide to roll back the golf ball or size of drivers to protect their courses?   The USGA will once again be faced with the choice of following the R&A; or reverting back to the day when the US had different rules from the rest of the world.

If that's the case, then what's the difference if the R&A; influences our rules or the PGA Tour?  Neither one is looking out for the US amateurs best interest?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by meenman

But remember, if the PGA Tour was not profitable neither you nor I would be able to afford a round of golf. Plus we would never have met these fine folks on the sand trap!

Prove it. Just more speculation without a solid foundation. And this site cares less about the PGA Tour than most others out there, so I don't think you're right about that either.

One could easily make the case that without the PGA Tour golf would be more affordable.

Regardless, this - like almost every other tactic and trick you've employed - is off topic.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Strawman argument warning:

Straw man argument decision: it's off topic and won't be discussed here. Thank you.

[Rulesman]

Any evidence for your speculation?

The R&A; is, by agreement with the USGA, only responsible for rule management in the ROW. The R&A; is also concerned with developing the game in the ROW. The USGA do the same in the USA and Mexico. Apart from the Open the R&A; is primarily concerned with amateur golf. In my experience their relationship is very amicable. No one forces anyone to do something they don't agree with.

The PGA Tour is solely concerned with its members wherever they may live.

[David in FL]

Originally Posted by meenman

But remember, if the PGA Tour was not profitable neither you nor I would be able to afford a round of golf. Plus we would never have met these fine folks on the sand trap!

Yep.  No one ever played and enjoyed the game and camaraderie associated golf until the PGA Tour came to town.......

[meenman]

Prove it. Just more speculation without a solid foundation. And this site cares less about the PGA Tour than most others out there, so I don't think you're right about that either.

Prove it? Prove me wrong. Do you really think that there would be as many people playing without the PGA Tour? Less players = higher cost of golf. The cost to operate a course is only incremently impacted by more people playing and that cash is often more than made up in cart fees. Whether I am the only one playing or there are 80 rounds out that day, the course still has to be watered, mown, etc. It's a proven fact around here that rounds are up when Tiger is winning. You live running a hobby as a business, you can also die living by old, worn out *traditions* The US is different from the rest of the world and maybe we shouldnt be run by a group that has the word *ancient* in it's title.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by meenman

Do you really think that there would be as many people playing without the PGA Tour?

That's not what you said.

Originally Posted by meenman

Less players = higher cost of golf.

That's not accurate either. It's only accurate if the number of courses, the way they're maintained, the staffing levels, etc. remain constant. Again, one could easily argue golf would be more affordable without the PGA Tour. Equipment companies wouldn't have to pay superstars so much to market their equipment. Golf courses wouldn't all have to be maintained like Augusta National. Etc.

Originally Posted by meenman

It's a proven fact around here that rounds are up when Tiger is winning. You live running a hobby as a business, you can also die living by old, worn out *traditions*

The economy did well when Tiger was winning too. That had a lot more to do with it than Tiger. Arnie, and television, yes. Tiger, not so much, no.

But this is the last time I'm saying this, meenman: this is off topic and further posts along these same lines will be removed.

[newtogolf]

At this point I just want the USGA to make their final decision.  2016 seems long enough away for the players that anchor to adapt and those that can't still have 3 year to make money before heading to the Champions Tour.  Phil seems to change putters and putting strokes weekly and he's still competing for top 25.